THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINES

New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 
Coupon SHOPWITHHWC

 

Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

madhuAzad

There are many successful homeopaths practicing with combinations and patent medicines and giving good results  even in difficult cases also.
My question is if only one similimum is required for cure then how these doctors are getting success?

Views: 4762

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No that is not a combination. It is a follow up. Hahnemann also gave one remedy in the morning and another in the evening. He needed that because he had only 150 remedies. You have 3500 at your disposal. But give me the reason why Carbo veg is the follow up of Nux in this case.

You write the remedy before you even give it, showing prejudiced observation. Paragraph 6 speaks about unprejudiced observation. Moreover, if you already know that this is the remedy, then why bother with an acute remedy that you know is incomplete? You could have given Carbo veg immediately and not waste your time with Nux.
Homeopathy Healthcare Forums
Look at this web site, and see how a remedy action is going on in the body when we use another or change our remedy or we suggest another remedy. The only thing we did is that we did not combine the remedy outside the body but combined them inside the body. It is all type of combination. Then why it is not recommended to save our time given them at once when we are dam sure, the patient will definitly required a second prescription in short time. Just a question for my knowledge? Give your reasons also to support your opinion.
You cannot be sure about any combination. You can only be sure about a single remedy. That is Hahnemann's and my last word on the subject. I don't give a hoot for anyone who thinks he knows better than Hahnemann. They have not got a clue.
Respected Dr.Mas
Sulphur in the morning & Nux. at night is not Homoeopathy. Aconite in fever on onset only need wait & watch followed by Kent's 12 observations.
If in acute cough we use 1-Aconite 2-Hep.sulph.3-Spongia according to stage change (progress the disease), it will be not a combination according to Dr. B'hausion.
According to Allen never use other medicines with Aconite in fever (if selected as simillimum).

In medicinal relationship chart we can follow th complimentries,followed well --according to th disease progress in a single form only but not in combination..To save our time we can not break our rules & principles...Homoeopath's should have patience with confidence..
Patient means --who have no patience..
With Regards...
This topics brings along with many hypothesis and controversies.The important thing for us to know is our pathy is very vast with large number of remedies.We believe in indivisualisation.this we do for two things
1)to understand patient as a person & 2)To find out exact similimum to prescribe on that indivsualistic totality of symtom.

when we prescribe combinations we are totaly at a lost as which remedy has acted. If any aggravations do occur we are again at a mess as which remedy is responsible for it.
Indeed. One can never know which remedy in the combination did what. So it promotes ignorance.
It ignores individuality, the totality of symptoms, the similimum and the science of homoeopathy.
Yes, about scarlet fever, it is mistakenly writen in combination thread. Actually, the point the was HAHNEMANN himself used homeopathic specifics and one big example is scarlet fever when he used belladonna for all and did not take symptoms ;)
quoted : Randi did the spot fixing. Not Benveniste. You have your facts wrong, just like with your combinations. I just give you an education in both scientific homoeopathy and complex prescribing. You are simply a very stubborn man, set in your ways and refuse to see that your viewpoint is entirely wrong.
----

In discussion, I do not pass personal remarks. I also do not comment on attitude. Its not a way of discussion.

Now coming toward the running topic again. We have difference of opinion. To me Benveniste got failed to prove his findings but to you, he established. I respect your opinion but you did not support your opinion with evidence. When you think Benveniste is right then why you are talking about radition theory. So you think all theories applly on homeopathy at at time. Its not sensible to me. Therefore, who is right or wrong? leave this option on public who is reading this blog. To me as I do not know how homeopathic remedy does work? therefore, I say, the idea of using single or combination remedies can't be solve. As you know the action of remedy so your opinion may be worth calling but in your simple opinion you did not came with SINGLE EVIDENCE except so many links which do not fulfill the purpose. Confusion is that you have changed your mind from atom to nothing and nothing to smaller particles then radition and then water memory. Believe you me, all these are different fields.
You have a difference of opinion. I simply state facts and give you an education.
If you do not like to be pulled up on attitude, then don't have one. It is also a way of discussion. Because that attitude stops you from seeing I present scientific facts. I do not spout an opinion. I quote scientific papers. Your attitude is one of argument, instead of learning. That is why you have to admit you do not know, and then still have the audacity to argue. You argue therefore from ignorance.

I gave you the evidence that Randi is not qualified - he is a stage magician, for pete's sake - and that HE arranged the bottles for the repeat by Nature's editor, who hates homoeopathy. They went in there to destroy Benveniste's reputation, not to make an honest experiment. You seem to be not aware of that.

I am not talking any theory. I give in my blog different ways and means to detect differences in homoeopathic preparations and plain dilutions. The scientists I quoted use electromagnetic means, RLS, NMR, and so on. I gave you all the evidence, but you do not accept it.
I did not change my mind at all. I never went from atom to nothing, because I already told you that something cannot become nothing. You are the only one who keeps saying there is nothing. Don't put your words into my mouth. You even do not read my answers properly. You deliberately misrepresent everything you have been given.

My discussion with you is now finished, because you reject scientific evidence. That is not having a discussion. You just want to argue. I have no time to waste on you further.
Quote: I already told you that Luc Montagnier has repeated his experiment and found it to be true.
------

Are you saying he was failed in first experiment? but passed in later experiment?
I am saying he repeated Benveniste's experiment. Neither Benveniste, nor Montagnier, ever failed.
Quote: Anyone using Sulph in the morning and Nux at night does not know how to find the similimum. I would never subject myself to such treatment and consider those bunglers not homoeopaths. They are mere imitators of what Hahnemann had to do due to a small amount of remedies.
.......
You see, I am not doing this practice, I am saying your homeopathic community is doing this pratice and such practice is also a type of combination.

RSS

HWC Partners

RADIO & VIDEO SHOWS

© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...