Do Doctors make better homoeopaths?

You would think so wouldn’t you? Hahnemann was a doctor. All the original practitioners were doctors, the American writers of homoeopathy were doctors, and they are held in high esteem in books and writings about them. Kent was a Doctor. Hering was a Doctor. Both supposedly able homoeopaths.

However, the greatest homoeopath of all in terms of cure and surety in prescription after Hahnemann was not a Doctor. Boenninghausen was his name.

The question should really be: What makes a good homoeopath?

A good homoeopath is someone:

  •  Someone who has read and understood all of Hahnemanns writings, starting with the rationale for its very existence.
  • Someone who understands the difference between a named disease, the results of a named disease, and the REAL disease as expressed by the patient in signs and symptoms.
  • Someone who does not confuse preferences or personality in tracing the picture of the disease.
  • Someone who understands what a prescribing symptom is.

I know a lot of medical doctors who practice homoeopathy. There are very few who meet the criteria of being a homoeopath with regard to adherence to the above requirements. There is also the problem of the main body of westerners who think they are practising homoeopathy by utilising the methodologies of Scholten, Sankaran Vithoullkas and others.

A few years ago, I was a member of a discussion group which included several prominent names in the homoeopathic community. One time, a question arose as to whether it was important to send a patient for a testing if cancer was suspected. A member, who is the president of a prominent American Homoeopathic Association emphatically stated that it was vital to do so. I asked him why.

“So the patient could get the appropriate and correct treatment for their cancer!” was the response.

I asked, “in your opinion, what is the appropriate and correct treatment for cancer?”  we all waited for the reply………. there was none. It was then that I realised that the allopathic view and treatment of patients had never changed to that of a homoeopath in him or most doctors.

I left the group.  There are clinics of doctors world wide who treat cancer with “homoeopathy” and once the tumour starts to diminish, then they will remove with surgery rather than allow the treatment to fix the problem. It is a bastardized process which actually is allopathic in nature using potentised medicines. I hear all the arguments for the process and get told of the successes, but are also aware of the failures with comments like, ” the cancer was too far advanced” “Secondaries started quickly and there was nothing we could do”…….. There are times when surgeries are necessary due to obstruction and complications, but to routinely remove cancer or without allowing the medicines to kill the disease process first, is asking for trouble.

So the question is, are YOU a homoeopath? Do you understand what homoeopathy can cure and where other therapeutic aids need to be implemented and why? Do YOU have confidence in the medicines? Do YOU know how to use homoeopathic medicines properly? Do YOU know what signs to look for and when to change a medicine?

This applies to medically qualified personnel as well.




One response to “Do Doctors make better homoeopaths?

  1. Pingback: Do Doctors make better homoeopaths part 2. |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.