Rabies

I gave a low potency, because they often act short but very strong. The 12X is still material and the disease also still much in the material stage - thirst, salivation and wild behaviour. The 12X works in such cases as much on the mental as the physical, just as any other potency could.
The idea that the higher potency acts more on the mental is because people think that the subtler it is, the subtler it works. I have said often that potency must match vitallity and severity of the disease - these follow also the law of similars. Thus the stronger the symptoms, the lower the potency and equally the lower the vitality, the lower the potency. They quickly exhaust their action and thus need frequent repetition.

I was actuall reminded of this case thanks to Piyush, who asked from what animals have i seen raboes bites. I asnwered that also i have seen from humans and remembered these cases quite vividly.

I think i could remember some more. Aconite might again claim these are not rabies. THEN HOW DID THE SECOND CHILD GET IT AFTER A BITE FROM HER BROTHER?

regards,
Kaviraj.

Dear Members.
 Here is clip from one of India's leading homeopathic journal, The Homeopathic Heritage. This is with reference to an article which in which the Homeopathic medicines and allopathic medicines are used, by a homeopath.

By bringing this  to the notice of our members I must not be considered as a supporter of allopathy and a hater of homeopathy.

Ref:  The Homeopathic  Heritage , vol 34, no.9, Sept 2009 issue p18.

“ Profile of Homeopathic Group Practice” …………..In cases where homeopathy does not give results, they will, in addition, use allopathic medicines”. 

Are they traitors of homeopathy?

Further, during earlier days of homeopathy the then homeopaths were telling that "When allopathy ends, homeopathy begins". The meaning when an allopath exhausts all his resources to treat his patients, the homeopath had all which he did not have (already exhausted).

Originally posted by Kaviraj Sigi,  incrased salivation, wild eyes and thirst, but water was rejected as soon as he looked at it. Nighty fevers and increasingly wild behaviour. I gave the boy Straminium and the girl Belladonna because of her besotted look. Kaviraj.

so you prescribed on whatever was active.Good.This is simple and perfect homeopathy.

Indeed, Sajjad,

That is all i do. No need for fancy vaccines with crippling side effects or spending a year in a hospital, most of it in induced coma and pumped full of drugs, of which methods have succeeded only 3 times. That news is from this morning and entirely up-to-date.

I shall later post some more cases as I ponder my memory, which is at present rather overloaded with clients and other work, on agro-homoeopathy. Moreover i have to find the time to answer al the posts here of those with the long toes and the short memories.

As the I Ching, an ancient Chinese book of Wisdom says:
To develop a fool, it is necesary to apply discipline. Continuing like this (as a fool) brings humiliation. It furthers one to be perseverant.
"Given a perseverance that never slackens, all the points are mastered one by one. First comes the difficult, then comes the easy. First it seems complicated, but when understood, it becomes simple. Simple and easy is the life of the sage."
So you know where i have been and that at least i realise that i am an eternal student of an infinite subject. Everything can be found in the Law of Similars, as elucidated in the Organon. It is not "just a guidebook". There is so much that after 60 readings and regular study when i discover something unusual, to see if it fits, I find i have or have not considered something enough.  And if it does not, I am simply wrong and have overlooked something. It means looking a bit further and deeper than just the point of your nose.
And in the process I have a lot of fun.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

“ Profile of Homeopathic Group Practice” …………..In cases where homeopathy does not give results, they will, in addition, use allopathic medicines”.

Are they traitors of homeopathy?

What do you consider they are, now that you have brought it up and used the word?

I see them merely as misguided and that is due to not understanding the Organon.
It is a lack of knowledge that speaks volumes.

My advise?
Evidently, I would not want to be a member, unless that clause is removed. It is a compromise with Ignorance.
Remove it and live up to homoeopathy instead of advertising your misunderstanding of it.

Study and practise go hand in hand. Neglect one for the love of ease and you lose every time and will go from bad to worse. Without that clause you have a goal, to cure the sick - not by any means, but rationally - and it forces you to study.

If you grab for the needle, my man, you no longer study those cases and will know little or less of the sequaelae. This is not a criticism but a fact. It needs to be addressed.

If homoeopathy is 21st century medicine, we need to bring it there by diligent study. I still do every day - as i quote you the relevant paragraphs of the Organon. I make it easy for you and you try to negate it in defence of your own deviation. That is indefensible and so i share with you all the insights gained in 30 years pure practise.

All you can do, is reject it.

I am not the one who loses out - you are the ones who fail to see the eternal truths from the Organon. You fight me over my adherence to them, while you say all in defense of deviation that I am mad and crazy?

You cannot stand in my shoes for ten seconds and you knees would begin to wobble. Yet you have the audacity to try and teach me how to walk.

How is it possible, that thinking men would not soak up another's experience and learn from it, like i do all the time? How is it possible that these same thinking men think that although Hahnemann was a great master, that he is the only one in our breed? That what was available to him, is not available to us? That masters are no longer there? They have no clue about homoeopathy and even less what entails mastery, yet pose as thinking men.
Learn how to serve and so become masters.
Learn how to follow if you have desires to lead.
Your behaviour to me shows that the leader is the function of the pi$$-pole. I don't mind - water off a duck's back.
You also see fit to berate Firuzi Mehta who is one of the peope who enables you to spout your deviations here and you are indeed so devoid of all manners that i begine to doubt you ever treated any patients.
You ask questions not in a spirit of learning and hunility, but in a challenging manner, because what i do you cannot and therefore you think nobody can. Well you also cannot fly a plane and still you step in with full confidence in the guy up front who claims to have a license. The lowest common denominator may count in the schools, where the dumbest in the class must be able to understand it.
Throw off that pose and be who you are, while learning what you should know. Now you have become desperados of disregard.
Here i am expecting thinking and well-mannered men and not shallow critics or useless students, or schoolyard bullies and hecklers.
Sometimes however, I have my doubts.

Kind regards,
Kaviraj.

I also remember a CANTHARIS case.

This man in his mid twenties cam home late one night - his bike got a flat tyre, 20 kms from home. Near his house he was attacked by a pack of street dogs and he had no stick. He got bitten about 5 - 7 time by different dogs. He went to a pharmacy and they bandaged hs bites and gave him a tetanus shot on the say-so of a local doctor nearby.
He developed great dread of drinking, burning when urinating and burning in the throat after drinking. 4 days later he went down the street and literally barked at people holding his genitals with a constant erction. Priapism as it is called. His family contacted me on the fifth day and i went with them because he no longer recognised the family and was stark raving mad. Agressive and only his wife could approach.
She gave him bananas with 30X Cantharis pressed in a few times a day. He took a full week to recover.

Thanks again Piyush, you triggered my memory with your questions. That makes for 12 cases compared to allopathy!
I am sorry you take my advise wrong and think it is personal, which i already explained it is not. The word you is plural too, you know?

regards,
Kaviraj.

Ah No, That would be very cruel.

His only missiom is to heal the sick, to cure.

In the footnote Hahnemann rails agaisnt the system builders and theorists, who use inflated modes of expression in theorising about disease. He says even professorships are handed out on theoretical medicine.

They use the familiar attempt, to explain the general by means of the local.

An elephant can be identified as a sunflower – both have long stems. A camel is indistinguishable from a peanut – if only the humps are considered. One schooled in logic would not be satisfied with the camel and peanut identification. You want accessory agreement – that both can live for a long time without water, for instance.

Theoretical science is still a reaction against theological dogma. For it is rooted in nineteenth century thought – exclusionist. Where first God had to be excluded, now it is inimical data. If I or you were to pull out a piece of chewing gum about a meter long; that will be quite as scientific a performance as is the stretching of your imagination on accepting modern medicine – or its claims on the origin of disease – as scientific. Theirs is the attempt to assimilate all ‘verified’ phenomena under the materialist explanation. They want to formulate the rules for a final, all-inclusive system based on what they can hold between their fingers and can see with the eye. If they could, they would have a real science.

Alas, they disregard the mind, emotions and especially iatrogenesis as causes of disease and so they are stuck with the unscientific, because they exclude instead of include. They seem to think that such is real. I say they build a delusion upon a delusion and the second is as unreal as the first.
It is the reality, which we see every day in practice. Everything is between the ears and reflects on the body. It can also be the result of pharmaceutical or recreational drugs, manifested in the side effects. Nonetheless, the decision to take them is between the ears. You would not deny that grief could cause a headache, for grief is nothing but a headache – ask anyone who has grief.
You cannot deny that worry could give you stomach ulcers – ask anyone who has an ulcer about his mental state. He will tell you about his worries and nothing else. You cannot deny that blood pressure pills give you vertigo. Ask anyone who has taken them for a long time. You cannot tell me that if you take a lot of xtc, you will not end up with a depression. You cannot tell me that long-term use of any substance, medicinal or not, does not produce its effects. Ask anyone who has taken them.

Therefore, before inquiring into the origin of a certain thing, it is essential to understand its fundamental nature. Otherwise, searching for its origin is totally ludicrous. Consequently, you must first consider all possibilities before you accept or reject any of them as the ultimate cause.

‘The certainties of science are a delusion. Scientific doctrine is controlled by the diffused metaphysical concepts of our epoch. Whenever some new mode of observational experi-ence is obtained, the doctrines crumble in a fog of inaccuracies.’ This is a quote from Whitehead, from as long ago as 1925. (Science and the modern world)

From this sort of attestation of failure, we can see that the scientists follow Peter’s principle, where all the members in the hierarchy rise to their own level of incompetence.

In the end, we are reduced to using common sense. The problem is, that it is not so common and shockingly absent in far too many of the learned brethren on the orthodox medical side who, seeking to become erudite, succeed only in pouring emptiness into the void. Their uncompromising orthodox stand represents good as attempts, but these attempts stand for evil in their insufficiency.

Over and over they have seen our extraordinary cures. They have had no discussion; not even a comment afterwards – only burial and damnation. Burial and damnation or the obscurity of the conspicuous and hence, it is suspicious.

Similarly, the Pasteurian aberration known as the germ theory has replaced other theories on the origin of diseases, but is as faulty as the one it replaced. After all, the viruses and bacteria are noted as an end result of disease, since they are abundant in full-blown cases. Since result and cause are eternally different, it is at once clear that the germ theory is a faulty piece of reasoning.

Sufficient adulation of the substitute – that is the virus or bacterium – has become the aim of the researcher. Ignoring the existence of the real thing – or even its possibility – is as effective for practical purposes as if it was not there. That is tantamount to saying it does not exist.

Let us look at the virus or germ theory a little closer. It is but an assumption that germs cause disease. They say their evidence is presented in the fact that when they kill the bacteria or viruses, the disease is soon gone as well. The germs become active from some outside trigger – generally an invasion of those same germs. They attack the living cells and destroy them, in the process using the cell-DNA to multiply. A virus is really nothing more than a string of RNA-messenger cells, which need the cell’s DNA, to complete them and divide. If this is allowed to continue unabated, the body will succumb under the onslaught and the victim will die. That sounds like the correct view, is it not? After all, Pasteur already proved this more than 150 years ago, is the argument.

Pasteur made a few assumptions, which we shall scrutinise further, to discover whether they stroke with the facts or not. The first is the assumption that germs cause disease. When a disease is full-blown, what is the picture of the blood? A so-called ‘viral disease’ is characterised by a high level of viruses in the blood of victims of full-blown cases. This is – and we should note this well – invariably the case with all viral, bacterial, bacillal and mirobal diseases. Invariably this is noted only in full-blown cases. If we examine the blood of any healthy person, we may find the virus in some cases, but never in disproportionate amounts. In the sick, everyone has a very high count. When normally it may be one per million, in disease it is one per three cells.
What is important, we must consider carefully what we observe. In a full-blown case of disease, we are looking at the disease ultimate. It is an end-result. From the moment we entered primary school, we are taught that results are always different from causes, and this is scientific.

In viral diseases, they throw this scientific principle out the window and declare that cause and result are one and the same thing. This is unscientific, to say the least. It has no place in any scientific discussion, least of all medicine, where lives are dependent on thorough scientific principles and procedures. Why then does that not count for germs?

Germs are the exception to the rule, they say. That makes for many exceptions to the rule, for there are many different germs associated with disease. Several gut bacteria, such as salmonella and escheria coli to name but a few, totalling more than thirty different ones. Most of them are used as the bowel nosodes by homoeopaths. There is more than a just a hand-full of viruses, quite a few bacilli and microbes and then we do not even count the ones they have not yet discovered. Together, this veritable cornucopia of creatures makes for over 100 exceptions to the rule. That is exceptional by itself. It is therefore complete nonsense and subsequently thoroughly unscientific.

Then how come that when they are killed the disease also is finished? Because these drugs are suppressing the disease, which will reappear soon enough. The function of the germs is different from what Pasteur presented and that is why they cannot be exceptions to the rule and therefore do not cause disease. If the medical scientists paid attention to what they see they would have noticed that viruses attack only cells with receptors to which they can react. Healthy cells do not have those markers, so the virus cannot attack them. Why else are we not constantly sick?

Kaviraj.

YES, KARNAM, SELF EXPLANATORY.

As i said before, the moment you start using allopathic means you become lazy. I shall await the scan and then i don't have to go through the trouble of proper diagnosis. In the case of tetanus and rabies i shall give them a shot, so i no longer have to go through the trouble of proper diagnosis.
No proper diagnosis means i can also not longer properly treat. Because i no longer know what to treat - i only have a scan and no symptoms and thus no totality and as a result i cannot treat properly. From that arises the need to use complexes, in the hope of having one remedy in there doing the needful and then i have become a mongrel, a hypocrite and an ignoramus.
Note how i now say what happens if i do this myself, so mr piyush and aconite can pat their hurt egos from previous exchanges. You or I, whoever does it, makes no difference. It is all hypocrisy nonetheless.

Kaviraj.

Well, to begin with, scans and the like often require "contrast fluid" to be injected into the body and more often than not they are radio-active, because they gve the best "result" for the doctor.
For the patient it is quite another matter - he carries the substance with him for at least a while - depending on the half-life.
Where is the principle of "first do no harm" in these procedures? No long-term studies exist that tell us about more or less dangerous results and because these sudies do not exist, they simply say that there are no data citing any danger.
Similarly for the biopsy, which means you poke a hole in the ogan with a hollow needle and pull out a piece. You damage the organ and thus the patient. Again. Where is the principle of "first do no harm" in these procedures?
Reading numbers from a machine about blood and liver values does not tell one anything about the experience of the patient, which Hahnemann says is the sole means by which the disease can make itself known and this shows up as signs and symptoms.

Reliance on the diagostic test will result in thinking one does not have to check with the patient to verify by symptom similarity. Thus knowledge about symptoms and disease manifestations by the physician suffers and he will become more an more dependent on these repaorts till he has been turned into an allopath. If Hahnemann like "modernity" that much as some here want to assert, then why did he condemn Jenner's vaccination? Some even go so far as claiming it is the same principle. But Hahnemann condemned it as mongrel thinking.

We are true homoeopaths or we are such only in name - but not in practise. Lipservice to Hahnemann's teachings as a mere guidebook and catering to allopathic ideas, do not a homoeopath make.

regards,
Kaviraj.

In first book he writes that reason that homeopathy is not widespread only because Hahnemann wanted to create a sect and he actually created something like fanatic religious sect .

What nonsense! 48% of the world population uses homoeopathy. Wishful thinking on your part. Google WHO to get the truth on the matter.

Hahnemann was a scientist and did not create any sect. That exists only in the mind of those who do not understand it.

Hahnemann , Kent and other mixed scientific results with mystic and schizoids attracted to mystic.

Where did you get this lunacy? Don't just make silly statements. Give proof.

The major goal of demonstrative personalities  to attract attention to them self and not to treat patients , people who have demonstrative personality does not have compassion at all - they are ultimative egoists.

Now you want to claim you are psychologist or psychiatrist too? Sounds like a pretty egoistic statement to me. And demonstrative to boot.

Homeopathy attracts demonstratives because it is much more easy to became homeopath is much more easy than to became MD and health practitioner attracts attention of many people .

This means all doctors are the same. And to say that to beome homoeopath is much easier shows me that you have no idea what either allopathy or homoeopathy is.


Often we can see combination of two these types in people who work as homeopaths.
And I can easy recognize people who have schizoid , schizoid-demonstrative personalities and demonstrative personalities in this forum.

So now you want to say that homoeopaths are schizoid? You need to go see a psychiatrist. He is an allopath, so you should like that very much. Homoeopaths are crazy anyway, right? It is time to take your meds.
You can easily recognise schizoid personalities? It takes one to know one, as the saying goes. IOW, you throw your business card around for all to see. LOL, I haven't has such a good laugh in weeks. You should become a comedy writer. Hahahahahaha.

they do not hear voice of reason and thay do not have a common sense.

Again, it takes one to know one.

Initially I argued with them , but later I understood that this is not worth my time and energy

Then what are you arguing here? Why do you still post? You are wasting your time here, by your own admission. That is even more foolish.

There is such thing as homeopathic industry and main target of this industry is to extract as much money as possible from patient.
This is reason why many homeopaths in their words reject any other medical treatment - they want to get total control of patient's mind .

Yeah we are all millionaires, did you not know? We charge so much money we don't need to work any longer.
You are paranoid - another sign of schizophrenia. We don't want to control anyone's mind. On the contrary we work so that the patient can control is own mind.

4) In this forum I personally I got a lot of misadvice but I was smart enough not to follow .

You may be smart, but you lack the capacity to use your intelligence. Just like a thief may be smart, but he refuses to use his intelliegnce.You seek to antagonise and sow division. That's all. We homoeopaths are intelligent enough however not to fall for that.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

PS
I do hope you find a good psychiatrist who will treat you instead of having you locked up with your own kind.