The difference between a Homeopath and an Allopath

3
1634
Kent

“They say nothing about the man except in connection with his tissues ; they characterize the changes in the tissues as the disease and all there is of the disease, its beginning and its end. In effect they proclaim disease to be something that exists without a cause.
They accept nothing but what can be felt with the fingers and seen with the eyes or otherwise observed through the sense, aided by improved instruments.
The finger is aided by the microscope to an elongated point, and the microscopic pathological results of disease are noted and considered to be the beginning and the ending, i.e., results without anything prior to them.
That is a summary of allopathic teaching as to the nature of sickness.”
~ Dr. J. T. Kent

Comments

comments

3 COMMENTS

  1. Dr Hahnemann was never an oponent of allopaths,all he wanted was that his allopthic colleagues should be aware of when and where to use allopathy and homeopathy. “Dare to be wise”, he said.
    But allopathic Pharma lobby had everything to lose if allopaths acted unbiasedly to the new system of therapeutics namely homoeopathy. It is these selfish appothecaries and pharma barons and cartels that created the wedge and feud between brothers.
    There were quiet good number of allopaths who joined him overtly and also equal number of allopaths that supported him tacitly,covertly and also some fence sitters too. Pharma lobby went on spending huge monies in research and unearthing of several new drug entities which were very powerful and at the same time capable of causing more iatrogenic harm than so called therapeutic benefits and attended escalation of costs through high power marketing hypes.
    Right from Hahnemannian times,we homeopaths are certain as to when to refer our patients to our allopathic brethrens all in the keen desire to safeguard and conserve life,which is God or Nature ordained. We fully understand the merits,demerits and limitations of our system of therapeutics. We treat the person in disease and not disease in patient,we through selection of similimum aid the healing forces and immune forces that meets the central disturbances in PNEI axis,which gets expressed as symptoms,the language of the disease expressed through individual’s mind- body complexs via location,sensation,modalities,concomittants,
    causations,heredity,miasms etc,thus our homoeopathic system is very individualistic,patient centric and not nosological or adverse pathological specific. Errant pathology too often gets covered and put on path of recovery,without suppression. Only when we run out of all options of recovery we commence thinking about palliation,which may inherently have some suppressive elements.

    When this option too is ruled out in the interest of safeguarding and conserving life,we have no hesitancy in handing over the case to our allopathic brethren or other systems.

    Here the importance of case taking methodology of all our masters be kept in mind: Listen,Observe,Verify,Evaluate unbiasedly and unreservedly for apt mapping of therapeutic strategies,Herring’s postulates,drug relationships: acute,chronic,complementary,cognate,anti dotes, food similia,likely prognosis etc. We are also aided by modern diagnostic investigative scans and tests to look into adverse pathology and when needed be employed unreservedly in the interest of our patients.

    Indeed our science is very exhaustive, sapta samudra.

  2. what is the difference between a Homeopath and an Allopath?… The allopath is “killing” and suppressing all the patient symptoms: he is interested in symptoms, the homeopath is interested in the whole patient.:)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here