The ABC Homeopathy Forum
The Banerji Protocol - Is it Homeopathy? Page 3 of 3
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
Just to expand on another point you keep making - I have stated, both recently and in the past, that I believe the kind of method the Bannerjis have developed has its use for advanced cases of pathology. In the same way that people tend to respond to acute situations in fairly similar ways, I believe when tissue changes have become so extensive and dangerous also provoke a similar survival response. This certainly could mean a set selection of remedies would be beneficial, based on a set of similar responses by the body to the pathology.
However, 'classical' homoeopathy has cured all of these exact same diseases. There are many published cures of the same things you use your small selection of remedies to cure, by classical homoeopaths using other remedies. I have cured them using other remedies, so your assertion that classical homoeopathy doesn't cure anyone is false and ridiculous. There is no basis for such a statement.
I do hear that YOU couldn't cure cases using classical homoeopathy, but that is not surprising as you have no training. It is HARD being a homoeopath, and it is not for everyone. Only certain people have the patience and the skills, not to mention the interest, to be a competent homoeopath. And no, I do NOT believe every healer has to be a homoeopath - there are many styles of healing.
From what you have said, you appear to have bought a repertory program (Radar) and attempted to use that. You may not realise that those programs are only useful to experienced homoeopaths who know how to take a case, develop an appropriate hierarchy of symptoms, give each symptom the correct weight, and then interpret the symptom across to the most suitable rubric. Those programs do none of that for you, and attempting to use it (as all my past students discovered) does not replace any of those skills. In fact it is more likely to result in more errors in prescribing.
What I don't understand when I look at all the things you have written, is why you feel compelled to demonize homoeopathy. The Bannerjis do not do that at all, they simply state the difference between what they do and what other homoeopaths do.
In fact, I think it is prudent to actually look at what they say is the problem they perceive with classical homoeopathy (all taken from their own website and from articles they have published). It is important to note they have NEVER stated that classical homoeopathy does not work!
I am going to comment on each one - I think they make some valid points, but of course I simply disagree with their conclusions (which have lead to their protocols).
1. Different homoeopaths come up with different remedies for the same patient, and only one of these can be the simillimum.
Refutation: Firstly, a remedy only needs to cure by being similar to the case, not exactly the same. This will mean more than one remedy might cure a patient. Having to get one remedy only for any particular patient is not a requirement for cure.
The 'Simillimum' is simply a measurement of similarity. Similarity is a sliding scale, with various remedies occupying different places along that scale. The closer you get to the 'simillimum' (perfect remedy) end the better the quality of the cure (stability, speed, lack of aggravation, depth etc). The farther away you are the worse the quality (need for repetition, shallowness of reaction, local area only affected, significant aggravation, extra symptoms created, slowness of reaction etc).
However even medicines lower on that scale can be curative when used in sequence with other remedies (complementary relationships). Patients with good vitality may often be cured even with a partial similar, but even if not, the right use of a group of partial similars can create vast improvements in health.
It should be noted that the Bannerjis are already acknowledging they are not working with the simillimum, since they prescribe more than one remedy at once, and often move from remedy to remedy treating different parts of the case.
I found this argument strange on their part - it was as if they were saying 'classical homoeopaths cannot find the simillimum so their method is inefficient!' but then they themselves develop a method that avoids bothering to find it. I always felt that this was simply an acknowledgement of defeat on their part.
2. If a classical homoeopath needs to spend so much time with one patient, then they must charge high fees to be able to support themselves.
Now in some ways this is a very valid concern, and in fact one most homoeopaths I know have had to face (including myself!). But does this then support the idea that classical homoeopathy is not efficient or effective? This is a business concern on one end (for homoeopaths) and on the other a financial one for patients.
This comes down to the quality of cure, of the changes made, by medicines that are prescribed via each method. There are advantages and disadvantages either way quite frankly.
If a classical homoeopath spends 2 hours with a patient, and prescribes a remedy that is very far up the 'simillimum' end of the scale of similarity, this medicine will create a quality of change that is worth the money to that patient. Let me outline why:
1. It rarely needs repeating. The patient can simply go on with their life and not have to worry about it. Return visits are not frequent (and in some cases not necessary for a very long time).
2. It creates change across the whole person, without any need to change to different remedies.
3. It affects life-long patterns, in mental, emotional and physical spheres. This can improve the quality of a person's relationships, their ability to enjoy their life, their ability to reach the full potential. Breaking of a miasmatic pattern can safeguard the person from future chronic disease for many years, or at least moderate those diseases significantly.
This last advantage has benefits to the community as a whole, as it does not just remove symptoms or prolong the patient's life, but it makes them better people, better members of the community. This is a responsibility classical homoeopaths have, to return our patients to their lives as better people, to be able to contribute more to society.
Even looking at this from a purely physical perspective, breaking miasmatic patterns prevents them from being passed on to the patient's children (assuming they are not already born). Thus homoeopathy can help to safeguard future generations as well.
So that is it. They are the two reasons they give. They want consistency in prescribing (same medicine for everyone), and they want it to be done fast. There is no claim that the other system of homoeopathy does not work. They only claim that a couple of things about it make it unsuitable FOR WHAT THEY CONSIDER IMPORTANT. Since I consider other things important, for me their method is unsuitable.
There is no need to say only one or the other kind of homoeopathy should exist - both should, and both have their place in the world. Each one has its strengths, and I should point out each one obviously has weaknesses too.
[message edited by Evocationer on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:58:25 BST]
However, 'classical' homoeopathy has cured all of these exact same diseases. There are many published cures of the same things you use your small selection of remedies to cure, by classical homoeopaths using other remedies. I have cured them using other remedies, so your assertion that classical homoeopathy doesn't cure anyone is false and ridiculous. There is no basis for such a statement.
I do hear that YOU couldn't cure cases using classical homoeopathy, but that is not surprising as you have no training. It is HARD being a homoeopath, and it is not for everyone. Only certain people have the patience and the skills, not to mention the interest, to be a competent homoeopath. And no, I do NOT believe every healer has to be a homoeopath - there are many styles of healing.
From what you have said, you appear to have bought a repertory program (Radar) and attempted to use that. You may not realise that those programs are only useful to experienced homoeopaths who know how to take a case, develop an appropriate hierarchy of symptoms, give each symptom the correct weight, and then interpret the symptom across to the most suitable rubric. Those programs do none of that for you, and attempting to use it (as all my past students discovered) does not replace any of those skills. In fact it is more likely to result in more errors in prescribing.
What I don't understand when I look at all the things you have written, is why you feel compelled to demonize homoeopathy. The Bannerjis do not do that at all, they simply state the difference between what they do and what other homoeopaths do.
In fact, I think it is prudent to actually look at what they say is the problem they perceive with classical homoeopathy (all taken from their own website and from articles they have published). It is important to note they have NEVER stated that classical homoeopathy does not work!
I am going to comment on each one - I think they make some valid points, but of course I simply disagree with their conclusions (which have lead to their protocols).
1. Different homoeopaths come up with different remedies for the same patient, and only one of these can be the simillimum.
Refutation: Firstly, a remedy only needs to cure by being similar to the case, not exactly the same. This will mean more than one remedy might cure a patient. Having to get one remedy only for any particular patient is not a requirement for cure.
The 'Simillimum' is simply a measurement of similarity. Similarity is a sliding scale, with various remedies occupying different places along that scale. The closer you get to the 'simillimum' (perfect remedy) end the better the quality of the cure (stability, speed, lack of aggravation, depth etc). The farther away you are the worse the quality (need for repetition, shallowness of reaction, local area only affected, significant aggravation, extra symptoms created, slowness of reaction etc).
However even medicines lower on that scale can be curative when used in sequence with other remedies (complementary relationships). Patients with good vitality may often be cured even with a partial similar, but even if not, the right use of a group of partial similars can create vast improvements in health.
It should be noted that the Bannerjis are already acknowledging they are not working with the simillimum, since they prescribe more than one remedy at once, and often move from remedy to remedy treating different parts of the case.
I found this argument strange on their part - it was as if they were saying 'classical homoeopaths cannot find the simillimum so their method is inefficient!' but then they themselves develop a method that avoids bothering to find it. I always felt that this was simply an acknowledgement of defeat on their part.
2. If a classical homoeopath needs to spend so much time with one patient, then they must charge high fees to be able to support themselves.
Now in some ways this is a very valid concern, and in fact one most homoeopaths I know have had to face (including myself!). But does this then support the idea that classical homoeopathy is not efficient or effective? This is a business concern on one end (for homoeopaths) and on the other a financial one for patients.
This comes down to the quality of cure, of the changes made, by medicines that are prescribed via each method. There are advantages and disadvantages either way quite frankly.
If a classical homoeopath spends 2 hours with a patient, and prescribes a remedy that is very far up the 'simillimum' end of the scale of similarity, this medicine will create a quality of change that is worth the money to that patient. Let me outline why:
1. It rarely needs repeating. The patient can simply go on with their life and not have to worry about it. Return visits are not frequent (and in some cases not necessary for a very long time).
2. It creates change across the whole person, without any need to change to different remedies.
3. It affects life-long patterns, in mental, emotional and physical spheres. This can improve the quality of a person's relationships, their ability to enjoy their life, their ability to reach the full potential. Breaking of a miasmatic pattern can safeguard the person from future chronic disease for many years, or at least moderate those diseases significantly.
This last advantage has benefits to the community as a whole, as it does not just remove symptoms or prolong the patient's life, but it makes them better people, better members of the community. This is a responsibility classical homoeopaths have, to return our patients to their lives as better people, to be able to contribute more to society.
Even looking at this from a purely physical perspective, breaking miasmatic patterns prevents them from being passed on to the patient's children (assuming they are not already born). Thus homoeopathy can help to safeguard future generations as well.
So that is it. They are the two reasons they give. They want consistency in prescribing (same medicine for everyone), and they want it to be done fast. There is no claim that the other system of homoeopathy does not work. They only claim that a couple of things about it make it unsuitable FOR WHAT THEY CONSIDER IMPORTANT. Since I consider other things important, for me their method is unsuitable.
There is no need to say only one or the other kind of homoeopathy should exist - both should, and both have their place in the world. Each one has its strengths, and I should point out each one obviously has weaknesses too.
[message edited by Evocationer on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:58:25 BST]
♡ Evocationer last decade
I have been thinking more about why the Bannerjis have said their protocols are a preferable method of treatment over classical homoeopathy, and there is something else that struck me. They speak much about the SCIENCE of homoeopathy, and for the sake of the science they have created a system that removes any chance for individual practitioner error (in their view anyway).
It occurred to me, that this is a very lop-sided view of homoeopathy. It may not be surprising it has come from medical doctors. What they have also done, is remove the ART of homoeopathy. They have removed any creativity, any individual input from the practitioner that relies on their own intuition or life experiences. They have removed the counselling aspect - the 'people relating to people' component. And this is probably why it bothers me the most.
You see, they perceived a number of homoeopaths giving different remedies as UNSCIENTIFIC, because from the view of a scientist this could not work.
But homoeopathy is not just science, it goes beyond science. Homoeopaths are not technicians, they are no just scientists. More than one remedy can work because the creativity and imagination of the practitioner can actually influence the result. The relationship between a homoeopath and the patient is not just one of 'prescriber + patient' - any chemist could do that, in fact the person who prescribes becomes unimportant.
However the exploration of the suffering and pain of a patient, of the trials they have endured, the help we offer to the patient through the various traumas of their life to a point where they are resolved - this is just as important as curing the pathology. I would argue that while the Bannerji prescriber might be called to save the person's life when the situation is desperate, the Classical prescriber acts as the guide to a more fulfilling life, helping them to evolve.
How the patient got to c-ancer, is just as important as the fact that they ended up there. Considering that a significant proportion of the 'cured' patients regress and die, perhaps neglecting this part of treatment is a mistake.
Regardless of that, the satisfaction I get as a practitioner from helping people in this way, the fulfilment that comes from solving a difficult case and watching that person change and then flourish where before they were limited and stuck - this to me is the real strength of classical homoeopathy, and why I love it. The Bannerji protocols remove the human aspect of treatment, the counselling aspect, takes it down to a level that denies any relevance or respect for the individual who grew into their disease.
I certainly would be interested to see how the Bannerjis see the protocols dealing with emotional trauma, psychological disease, and general life problems that are not directly connected to a physical pathology.
I have seen client coming to me from Bannerji prescribers, where the protocols have been used for these things (I have no idea if they were meant to be used this way, but it is inevitable that people will - once you introduce the breach of principles it is hard to stop people breaking them everywhere), and it was a mess. They were usually much worse than before they started, and had new symptoms added on to the old ones.
[message edited by Evocationer on Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:04:36 BST]
It occurred to me, that this is a very lop-sided view of homoeopathy. It may not be surprising it has come from medical doctors. What they have also done, is remove the ART of homoeopathy. They have removed any creativity, any individual input from the practitioner that relies on their own intuition or life experiences. They have removed the counselling aspect - the 'people relating to people' component. And this is probably why it bothers me the most.
You see, they perceived a number of homoeopaths giving different remedies as UNSCIENTIFIC, because from the view of a scientist this could not work.
But homoeopathy is not just science, it goes beyond science. Homoeopaths are not technicians, they are no just scientists. More than one remedy can work because the creativity and imagination of the practitioner can actually influence the result. The relationship between a homoeopath and the patient is not just one of 'prescriber + patient' - any chemist could do that, in fact the person who prescribes becomes unimportant.
However the exploration of the suffering and pain of a patient, of the trials they have endured, the help we offer to the patient through the various traumas of their life to a point where they are resolved - this is just as important as curing the pathology. I would argue that while the Bannerji prescriber might be called to save the person's life when the situation is desperate, the Classical prescriber acts as the guide to a more fulfilling life, helping them to evolve.
How the patient got to c-ancer, is just as important as the fact that they ended up there. Considering that a significant proportion of the 'cured' patients regress and die, perhaps neglecting this part of treatment is a mistake.
Regardless of that, the satisfaction I get as a practitioner from helping people in this way, the fulfilment that comes from solving a difficult case and watching that person change and then flourish where before they were limited and stuck - this to me is the real strength of classical homoeopathy, and why I love it. The Bannerji protocols remove the human aspect of treatment, the counselling aspect, takes it down to a level that denies any relevance or respect for the individual who grew into their disease.
I certainly would be interested to see how the Bannerjis see the protocols dealing with emotional trauma, psychological disease, and general life problems that are not directly connected to a physical pathology.
I have seen client coming to me from Bannerji prescribers, where the protocols have been used for these things (I have no idea if they were meant to be used this way, but it is inevitable that people will - once you introduce the breach of principles it is hard to stop people breaking them everywhere), and it was a mess. They were usually much worse than before they started, and had new symptoms added on to the old ones.
[message edited by Evocationer on Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:04:36 BST]
♡ Evocationer last decade
I am bumping this thread up as it dates back to 2012 to keep members of the ABC informed of the Trauma I had to face at that time from a few diehard classical homeopaths on this ABC Forum who insisted that it was only through the long process of the questionnaire usually running to over 50 questions that the remedy could be only identified according to the tenets of this Science, to enable the consultant Homeopath to treat “The totality of the Symptoms the patient presents with a Single Remedy”.
I used this guideline for some years after I first commenced my studies in Homeopathy in 1965 and also later added Radar which was reputed to be the Ultimate Homeopathic Software, to guide me in identifying this elusive “Single” Remedy, but when I discovered that I did not succeed to help the patient in the majority of cases, I decided to use my own therapy which was described as allopathic and as “This for That” by a coterie of Classical Homeopaths on the ABC and other Forums I visited on a daily basis, where it was opined that it could not be classified as Homeopathy although at that time it was only too obvious that I seemed to be achieving a higher rate of cure in helping patients than those who were being treated by the classical homeopaths.
It was at that time that a member (Gavini Murthy) labelled my therapy as “Joepathy” and it is interesting to record that this term now attracts just under 4000 hits on Google, each of which is a case record.
Since almost every prescription that I gave a patient on this Forum was subjected to challenge and harsh criticism by an Australian member who considered that Homeopathy was his own private preserve, I decided to establish my own Website in 2010 and you are invited to visit it on:
www.joedelivera.com.
I had discovered that I was not alone in using and prescribing my direct “This for That” therapy as an august body of qualified Homeopaths in Kolkata who owned and operated the
PRASANTA BANERJI HOMEOPATHIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
http://www.pbhrfindia.org/
also used the same protocol I had formulated independent of them, and used and prescribed it in spite of the ruffling of the proverbial feathers it was causing in the classical camps. I did so as I had discovered many years ago that my therapy was by far more effective in curing the ailment presented by the patient. I noticed that after I changed over to the Wet dose in 2005, there was an increase in the positive response of patients in comparison to the dry pellets I used up to that time, in common with the world body of Homeopaths. The Wet dose comprises using just 2-3 drops of the remedy in Alcohol or 6-8 pellets in a 500ml bottle of spring water. I would like to state here that I coined this term “Wet dose” (Google) in consultation with Dr Luc de Schepper who was here in Sri Lanka to help the survivors of the Tsunami which devastated our shores on December 26 2004.
My Joepathy soon became a subject of interest in Homeopathic circles since it was obvious that the rate of cure I had established was by far higher in comparison to that achieved by prescribing the Classical protocol. Judging by the response it has created I feel it my duty to continue to promote and use it as long as I live (I am now 86) to help anyone in distress who consults me, free of charge, on my Website:
www.joedelivera.com
I would like to conclude by recording that at my advanced age I do not have any aches and pains and other impediments which are accepted as the price one pays for the advancing years. The only Homeopathic remedy I take is just a dose (5ml) of Arnica 30c in the Wet dose nightly before bed. I have not taken any drugs whatever since my last surgery to repair a Hernia in 2008 and all my vital signs are normal or below normal.
It is my hope that whoever reads this post will give Arnica a chance to help you and you can get all information on the use of this remedy on my Website.
I used this guideline for some years after I first commenced my studies in Homeopathy in 1965 and also later added Radar which was reputed to be the Ultimate Homeopathic Software, to guide me in identifying this elusive “Single” Remedy, but when I discovered that I did not succeed to help the patient in the majority of cases, I decided to use my own therapy which was described as allopathic and as “This for That” by a coterie of Classical Homeopaths on the ABC and other Forums I visited on a daily basis, where it was opined that it could not be classified as Homeopathy although at that time it was only too obvious that I seemed to be achieving a higher rate of cure in helping patients than those who were being treated by the classical homeopaths.
It was at that time that a member (Gavini Murthy) labelled my therapy as “Joepathy” and it is interesting to record that this term now attracts just under 4000 hits on Google, each of which is a case record.
Since almost every prescription that I gave a patient on this Forum was subjected to challenge and harsh criticism by an Australian member who considered that Homeopathy was his own private preserve, I decided to establish my own Website in 2010 and you are invited to visit it on:
www.joedelivera.com.
I had discovered that I was not alone in using and prescribing my direct “This for That” therapy as an august body of qualified Homeopaths in Kolkata who owned and operated the
PRASANTA BANERJI HOMEOPATHIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
http://www.pbhrfindia.org/
also used the same protocol I had formulated independent of them, and used and prescribed it in spite of the ruffling of the proverbial feathers it was causing in the classical camps. I did so as I had discovered many years ago that my therapy was by far more effective in curing the ailment presented by the patient. I noticed that after I changed over to the Wet dose in 2005, there was an increase in the positive response of patients in comparison to the dry pellets I used up to that time, in common with the world body of Homeopaths. The Wet dose comprises using just 2-3 drops of the remedy in Alcohol or 6-8 pellets in a 500ml bottle of spring water. I would like to state here that I coined this term “Wet dose” (Google) in consultation with Dr Luc de Schepper who was here in Sri Lanka to help the survivors of the Tsunami which devastated our shores on December 26 2004.
My Joepathy soon became a subject of interest in Homeopathic circles since it was obvious that the rate of cure I had established was by far higher in comparison to that achieved by prescribing the Classical protocol. Judging by the response it has created I feel it my duty to continue to promote and use it as long as I live (I am now 86) to help anyone in distress who consults me, free of charge, on my Website:
www.joedelivera.com
I would like to conclude by recording that at my advanced age I do not have any aches and pains and other impediments which are accepted as the price one pays for the advancing years. The only Homeopathic remedy I take is just a dose (5ml) of Arnica 30c in the Wet dose nightly before bed. I have not taken any drugs whatever since my last surgery to repair a Hernia in 2008 and all my vital signs are normal or below normal.
It is my hope that whoever reads this post will give Arnica a chance to help you and you can get all information on the use of this remedy on my Website.
♡ Joe De Livera 8 years ago
Hi all - I was reading all the posts and I have few questions for Dr. David.
When we talk of individualization we still try many medicine in order to reach that state. Is not that a hit and trial method.
I do agree that homeopaths on India are running after money and therefore they do not disclose what are they prescribing.
With regards
Bhupesh
When we talk of individualization we still try many medicine in order to reach that state. Is not that a hit and trial method.
I do agree that homeopaths on India are running after money and therefore they do not disclose what are they prescribing.
With regards
Bhupesh
bhuptgu 8 years ago
Glad to note that at least one member on this ABC cared to read the totality of this very long thread and comment on it, which quite frankly I did not expect.
I note that you have addressed your questions to Dr David and although I have not been a regular visitor of this Forum in the recent past, I visited it again today and was glad to see your comment. Unfortunately David has been absent from the ABC for many months this year and I believe that he had been involved in a motor accident which may have incapacitated him.
You stated:
"When we talk of individualization we still try many medicine in order to reach that state. Is not that a hit and trial method. "
You have hit the proverbial “nail on the head” and I am glad to note that it is not only I that refuse to be fooled by these classical homeopaths who proliferate throughout the world whom you have described:
"that homeopaths on India are running after money”
You have again stated another fact that I did not wish to elaborate on but I feel that it is obvious that the manner that Classical Homeopathy is taught and later prescribed by the qualified homeopaths gives them official sanction to continue to hoodwink the patient in many cases although there are obviously some who are not, like me and the Banerji Homeopathic Foundation who prescribe in our respective Websites to serve and hopefully cure suffering humanity, free of charge.
The classical homeopath is expected during his studies to treat the “Totality of the Symptoms the patient presents with a single remedy” and it is in this phrase that he gets the blanket license to expect the suffering patient to visit him time and time again to get that elusive ‘single remedy’ which you again have correctly questioned:
"Is not that a hit and trial method. “
I am fortunate that I did not attend any Homeopathic college as in any case, Homeopathy is not my profession. It is only my Hobby to which I am dedicated at my advanced age of 86 years in addition to my duties as the CEO of a very old business organisation in Colombo, Sri Lanka.
I have proved that my “Joepathy” CURES far more effectively than classical homeopathy and therein lies the debate that I bumped up in this thread with David Kempson who was my chief detractor on the ABC and even on my own Website:
www.joedelivera.com
Kind Regards
Joe De Livera
I note that you have addressed your questions to Dr David and although I have not been a regular visitor of this Forum in the recent past, I visited it again today and was glad to see your comment. Unfortunately David has been absent from the ABC for many months this year and I believe that he had been involved in a motor accident which may have incapacitated him.
You stated:
"When we talk of individualization we still try many medicine in order to reach that state. Is not that a hit and trial method. "
You have hit the proverbial “nail on the head” and I am glad to note that it is not only I that refuse to be fooled by these classical homeopaths who proliferate throughout the world whom you have described:
"that homeopaths on India are running after money”
You have again stated another fact that I did not wish to elaborate on but I feel that it is obvious that the manner that Classical Homeopathy is taught and later prescribed by the qualified homeopaths gives them official sanction to continue to hoodwink the patient in many cases although there are obviously some who are not, like me and the Banerji Homeopathic Foundation who prescribe in our respective Websites to serve and hopefully cure suffering humanity, free of charge.
The classical homeopath is expected during his studies to treat the “Totality of the Symptoms the patient presents with a single remedy” and it is in this phrase that he gets the blanket license to expect the suffering patient to visit him time and time again to get that elusive ‘single remedy’ which you again have correctly questioned:
"Is not that a hit and trial method. “
I am fortunate that I did not attend any Homeopathic college as in any case, Homeopathy is not my profession. It is only my Hobby to which I am dedicated at my advanced age of 86 years in addition to my duties as the CEO of a very old business organisation in Colombo, Sri Lanka.
I have proved that my “Joepathy” CURES far more effectively than classical homeopathy and therein lies the debate that I bumped up in this thread with David Kempson who was my chief detractor on the ABC and even on my own Website:
www.joedelivera.com
Kind Regards
Joe De Livera
♡ Joe De Livera 8 years ago
Thanks Mr. Joe.
Most of you work I have seen around GERd. Using natphos and Arnica.
Why don't you also try to figure out a remedy for Diabetes or cataract or BP.
Probably that would answers what Dr David is looking for.
Most of you work I have seen around GERd. Using natphos and Arnica.
Why don't you also try to figure out a remedy for Diabetes or cataract or BP.
Probably that would answers what Dr David is looking for.
bhuptgu 8 years ago
I believe that I invited you to visit my Website where I have recorded my own “discoveries” for various diseases which are not listed in the Materia Medicas used today in Classical Homeopathy which I do NOT accept although I use the standard Homeopathic remedies that are marketed throughout the world to help patients.
DIABETES
I shall copy my default therapy for Diabetes below:
I shall copy below my default therapy aka "Joepathy" which many Diabetics are using today to control their BS levels.
The remedy I have prescribed is Arnica 3c in the Wet dose which is taken twice daily.
Mag Phos 6x dose 2 tablets taken thrice daily have also helped to reduce BS levels and you can add this to your daily dosage.
Please note that you will most likely notice a dip in your BS level within 24 hours of starting my therapy and you will then have to reduce your dosage of either Metformin or of Insulin as it must be maintained around 110.
Type I patients have confirmed that they discovered their BS levels were reduced by about 20% within a day of their starting on this therapy.
Type II patients will have to monitor their BS levels on a daily basis to ensure that their BS is stabilized at around 110 and they will reduce the dosage of the drugs that they are using daily to maintain this level. The Arnica 6c and the Mag Phos 6x are taken as prescribed.
The Wet dose of any Homeopathic remedy is made as follows:
Order the remedy in the Liquid pack in Alcohol, also referred to as Liquid Dilution in a bottle preferably with a dropper arrangement.
Get a 500ml bottle of Spring Water from the nearest supermarket.
Pour out about 3cm of water from the bottle to leave some airspace.
Insert 3 drops of the remedy into the bottle and shake the bottle hard at least 6 times before you sip a capfull of the bottle or a large teaspoonful which is the dose.
Shaking the bottle hard is homeopathic succussion and this enhances the effect of the remedy on the user.
Exercise is essential to help the Diabetic and unfortunately many are not in the habit of a daily routine of exercise which in many cases is the reason for the increase in Blood Sugar levels. You are advised to start with a brisk walk and you must ensure that you sweat it out to derive any benefit from the exercise.
Cinnamon powder is also useful to reduce BS levels and a quarter teaspoonful can be taken brewed as a tea twice daily. Okra or Bandakka which grows in the tropics also helps to reduce BS levels. Okra is used by cutting up a tender pod and inserting it into a glass of water which is left overnight and the water is drunk on an empty stomach the morning after.
Turmeric has also been discovered to help reduce BS levels and can be used in a similar manner to the Cinnamon.
You will not use any other drug when using this therapy.
Do not use Coffee, Cola beverages, preserved foods like sausages, ham and bacon as they contain Saltpeter.
CATARACT
I have a Cataract in my left eye which was first identified in 1995. In 1996 I started to take Arnica 30c in the Wet dose nightly and discovered that 20 years later my cataract is still at the same level it was in 1995. I cannot claim that it was cured but it was certainly arrested in its usual progress of increasing its density and I can still see sufficiently to not warrant any surgical intervention.
Visit:
ARNICA THE MIRACLE REMEDY
http://www.joedelivera.com/?p=66
The chances of David Kempson being satisfied with my Joepathy are remote as to him Classical Homeopathy is the only manner that can cure a patient.
I have disagreed from the very outset of his infernal interference and I now have my own Website where I have no interference from him or any other person who disagrees with my Joepathy and I have had a few in the past, as I have the right of deleting their posts from my Website.
You may like to know that I have over 250 visits on my Website and try to help about 10 patients on a daily basis.
DIABETES
I shall copy my default therapy for Diabetes below:
I shall copy below my default therapy aka "Joepathy" which many Diabetics are using today to control their BS levels.
The remedy I have prescribed is Arnica 3c in the Wet dose which is taken twice daily.
Mag Phos 6x dose 2 tablets taken thrice daily have also helped to reduce BS levels and you can add this to your daily dosage.
Please note that you will most likely notice a dip in your BS level within 24 hours of starting my therapy and you will then have to reduce your dosage of either Metformin or of Insulin as it must be maintained around 110.
Type I patients have confirmed that they discovered their BS levels were reduced by about 20% within a day of their starting on this therapy.
Type II patients will have to monitor their BS levels on a daily basis to ensure that their BS is stabilized at around 110 and they will reduce the dosage of the drugs that they are using daily to maintain this level. The Arnica 6c and the Mag Phos 6x are taken as prescribed.
The Wet dose of any Homeopathic remedy is made as follows:
Order the remedy in the Liquid pack in Alcohol, also referred to as Liquid Dilution in a bottle preferably with a dropper arrangement.
Get a 500ml bottle of Spring Water from the nearest supermarket.
Pour out about 3cm of water from the bottle to leave some airspace.
Insert 3 drops of the remedy into the bottle and shake the bottle hard at least 6 times before you sip a capfull of the bottle or a large teaspoonful which is the dose.
Shaking the bottle hard is homeopathic succussion and this enhances the effect of the remedy on the user.
Exercise is essential to help the Diabetic and unfortunately many are not in the habit of a daily routine of exercise which in many cases is the reason for the increase in Blood Sugar levels. You are advised to start with a brisk walk and you must ensure that you sweat it out to derive any benefit from the exercise.
Cinnamon powder is also useful to reduce BS levels and a quarter teaspoonful can be taken brewed as a tea twice daily. Okra or Bandakka which grows in the tropics also helps to reduce BS levels. Okra is used by cutting up a tender pod and inserting it into a glass of water which is left overnight and the water is drunk on an empty stomach the morning after.
Turmeric has also been discovered to help reduce BS levels and can be used in a similar manner to the Cinnamon.
You will not use any other drug when using this therapy.
Do not use Coffee, Cola beverages, preserved foods like sausages, ham and bacon as they contain Saltpeter.
CATARACT
I have a Cataract in my left eye which was first identified in 1995. In 1996 I started to take Arnica 30c in the Wet dose nightly and discovered that 20 years later my cataract is still at the same level it was in 1995. I cannot claim that it was cured but it was certainly arrested in its usual progress of increasing its density and I can still see sufficiently to not warrant any surgical intervention.
Visit:
ARNICA THE MIRACLE REMEDY
http://www.joedelivera.com/?p=66
The chances of David Kempson being satisfied with my Joepathy are remote as to him Classical Homeopathy is the only manner that can cure a patient.
I have disagreed from the very outset of his infernal interference and I now have my own Website where I have no interference from him or any other person who disagrees with my Joepathy and I have had a few in the past, as I have the right of deleting their posts from my Website.
You may like to know that I have over 250 visits on my Website and try to help about 10 patients on a daily basis.
♡ Joe De Livera 8 years ago
To post a reply, you must first LOG ON or Register
Important
Information given in this forum is given by way of exchange of views only, and those views are not necessarily those of ABC Homeopathy. It is not to be treated as a medical diagnosis or prescription, and should not be used as a substitute for a consultation with a qualified homeopath or physician. It is possible that advice given here may be dangerous, and you should make your own checks that it is safe. If symptoms persist, seek professional medical attention. Bear in mind that even minor symptoms can be a sign of a more serious underlying condition, and a timely diagnosis by your doctor could save your life.