What injuries improve the most as a result of homeopathic treatment?


, , , , ,


Question asked in a ‘Homeopaths only’ group on social media:  What injuries improve the most as a result of homeopathic treatment?

The outcomes are non-representative!

Participants were able to tick one or more boxes.


The results enabled derivation of the following data (in %):

The general response showed highest impact measures of homeopathic treatment for ‘Mental / Emotional’ Issues (37.142%); followed by just more than ¼ of homeopaths responses for significant impact of homeopathy on chronic diseases (28.571%). It was claimed that acute afflictions are best resolved using homeopathy by 25.714%, and physical injuries were considered to respond best to homeopathy by 8.571% of responses.

Graph 1 illustrates this:



The spread of responses given across the number of choices available was as follows:

16.66% ticked all 4 options

22.22% ticked 3 options

22.22% ticked 2 options

and 38.88% ticked just 1 option.


This is illustrated in graphic form here:



Of the participants that ticked only one response, outcomes showed the following believes:

57.142% thought Mental/Emotional issues resolved the best with homeopathic treatment.

14.285% believed Chronic afflictions responded the best to homeopathy.

28.571% were convinced Acutes improved best.



Genuine responses





Compared against each other the following illustrates the multiple choice responses versus the genuine responses received:

This shows that there is only small deviation in the results when comparing the multiple response option to the genuine ‘one-only’ response. However physical injuries are not considered of major responsiveness in the single responses given to the question, while they were significant in the multiple option responses.



Homeopaths argued that all afflictions to health, indifferent of their nature reacted equally well to homeopathic treatment. However it was stressed that the extent of responsiveness depended on the given case, and the persons involved. Due to the nature of illness it was further pointed out that acute and physical afflictions were less complex and therefore were faster in their resolution than the mental/emotional or the chronic diseases.


Case-taking ‘at a distance’– what percentage of consultations do homeopaths take via VOIP?


, , , , ,



Does it do the patients treatment and the homeopathic case-taking justice to see patients via VOIP systems, such as Skype, without seeing and meeting the patient face-to-face?

A non-representative survey conducted on a social networking site, brought forth the following considerations:

Question asked:

Do you offer to take cases via skype or other VOIP services as part of your homeopathic practice? If so, to what percentage does such ‘case-taking at a distance’ make up your clientele?

The following percentage ranges were given as possible answers:

10 – 20%

Homeopaths responded as such:



The discussion shed some light onto practitioners’ thoughts on this topic:

While the face-to-face consultation is prioritized, the opinion was voiced that ‘a treatment was better than no treatment’ for a patient in need. Systems like Skype, with the video option permitting visually perception of the patient, were considered the preferred tool to telephone consultations that did not offer this possibility. It was stressed that in emergencies and in follow-up consultations, where the first consultation had been conducted face-to-face, VOIP systems were a most viable option. It was further agreed that non-verbal information expressed by patients was very valuable, and that this was most marked in a patient’s home environment.



What if a case-taking has become challenging?


, , , , ,




Not all consultations in the treatment room leave a practitioner un-touched or without impact. There may be issues in a patients case-taking that arouse discomfort, troubling thoughts or concerns in the practitioner.

What happens if we, as practitioners, struggle? If we find a patient and his or her case history challenging? What can we do if our service to this patient, triggers within us, buttons that we would never want to have pushed?

Supervision, is a tool, an option, a service available to practitioners, where they can seek help if they require assistance dealing with situations occurring within consultations that they cannot get their head round, that challenge their views or trouble their mind.

We wanted to know what views homeopaths had concerning ‘supervision’!


Supervision… a helpful service to have, or unnecessary? What are your thoughts? Do you appreciate the availability of supervision for our profession as homeopaths, or do you think this is of no use and unnecessary?

Possible answers were:


  • Supervision is a great help


  • Supervision is unnecessary


This is how homeopaths responded:





Homeopaths felt that supervision can be of assistance for practitioners. However they argued that there are differing approaches, and a practitioner has to find one that suits him or her. With an appropriate approach found, seeing a supervisor can be beneficial to the practitioner.



Should homeopathy cost as much as conventional medicine?


, , , , ,




I have always wondered how people are prepared to pay so much for the motor-oil they put into their cars, but become stingy when it comes to their healthcare, and dub alternative treatments too expensive … yet, when we look at charges in the conventional sphere,(where they are not covered by health insurances), fees charged are much higher… SHOULD THE CHARGES FOR OUR SERVICES CHANNEL THOSE OF THE CONV. MED. SPHERE?

Possible answers:




All responding homeopaths answered with yes!


It has been known that some find the costs for homeopathic services elevated, yet, considering the time spent in the homeopathic consultation compared to that of conventional medicine… the engagement and effort put into the homeopathic case taking exceeds, by far, that of the conventional consultation.

Taking a look at the expenditure on health related costs in the private conventional medical sector, those that have to be paid for privately by patients, the costs for homeopathy are, globally seen, much lower.

There is somewhat a discrepancy here. The average time spent in the homeopathic consultation lies between 45 Minutes to 90 Minutes, this time of the practitioner, spent with the patient, listening, appraising the case-history presented, needs to be valued appropriately. Homeopathy can and must be charged for correctly, reflecting the time and effort invested for the patient!


How to attract clients?


, , , , , ,

For the recent forum question in a homeopathic group, on a social networking site, the following question was investigated:


How important is marketing for your practice? Do you get most of your clients via word-of-mouth, or do you advertise (written press or online), is social media helpful, blogging, website, or do you promote your services via talks, workshops etc?. What has/is working best for you in creating a client base?

Possible answers were:

  • word-of-mouth
  • workshops, talks, short courses etc.
  • advertisements online, in social media etc.
  • advertisements in written press
  • blogging / website
  • a mix of all of the above
  • none of the above


Homeopaths responded as follows:


graph - marketing

An integrative approach – are you pro or contra?


, , , , , , ,

The following question was brought to discussion in a homeopathic social networking group:

An integrative approach – are you pro or contra? What are your thoughts, if homeopathy, then ONLY homeopathy, or, homeopathy as an adjunctive to other therapies & treatments?





Arguments in the discussion were:
Homeopathy is in itself a very complete treatment system, yet requires ultimate precision and advancement to achieve its full potential. Homeopathy is not all encompassing, and nature has provided diversity for our use, that can aid in the reduction of suffering and disease. Homeopathy should be used as extensively as possible, and should be complemented by other approaches when and where necessary. This requires careful management.

Do Homeopaths practise homeopathy alone, or do they also offer other CAM treatments to their patients?


, , , ,

To explore this question a non-representative survey was conducted in a `homeopathic professionals group´, on a social networking site.
The following question was asked:

Do you practice another CAM approach adjunctive to your homeopathic practice?
Is it an energetic approach, a hands-on therapy, or a nutritional type?

50% of homeopaths that responded said they did not practise another CAM discipline besides homeopathy. The remaining 50% replied that they did. Adjunctive therapies mentioned were metabolic balance, cell salts, mind/body medicine, gemmo therapy and others.

Is working for free, an incentive for clients?


, , , , , ,

How often have you given an advice or a recommendation for a prescription to a friend, acquaintance or client, for FREE? Did this, lead to any benefits for you? Did it yield you with new patients? Is working at no cost an incentive to clients to come and see you as a paying customers?
A non-representative survey was conducted in a `homeopathic professionals group´, on a social networking site to identify homeopaths opinions.
The following question was asked:

Does working for free yield paying clients?


The outcome of the survey was as follows:


Practitioners argued that working for free spreads the word about the service you provide, and in the long-run can ensure a paying clientele. For persons who have no knowledge of the services provided, working for free gives them the chance to try homeopathy without initially having to expend on it. Some opinions were that at times working for free will lead to referrals. It has been pointed out that without paying for a service, the value of the service, and of homeopathy in general, to the customer, is diminished.
Further arguments were, that valuing what one does and being appropriately paid for this, makes clients treasure the service they are receiving. Those patients who value homeopathy are readily prepared to pay for it.
It was also mentioned that exceptions to regularly paying services, such as charitable events or situations where there is a non-monetary payment, return a benefit in referrals, advertising, or other. A different topic is working for free, or at a reduced fee, for persons that cannot afford to pay. This service is generally valued highly by customers, and leads to word of mouth also amongst patients that are able to pay.

To ‘niche’ or not to ‘niche’


, , , ,

A question that frequently comes up in discussions and the exchange with fellow homeopaths and colleagues is that of specialization. Yes or no?

Is it necessary to specialize in homeopathic practice? What’s a good niche? What are the benefits? And how can one find an appropriate niche?

This question asked on a social media site yielded 50/50 responses. Equal number of practitioners said they specialized as said they did not!

What are your thoughts on this? Do post comments below and join in the discussion!

Korsakov remedies – a stand alone approach?


, , , , , ,

Semen Nikolaevich Korsakov (1787 – 1853) used 1 vial to produce a potency! For every potency of a remedy that he produced, Korsakov used the same glass vial, emptying it out after every potency. He considered that what remained on the walls of the glass if its content was emptied, would be equivalent to 1 drop. He filled the vial at each potentisation stage with new carrier-substance, succused this and then emptied the vial, and as such came to his potency of choice using just that 1 glass.

Hahnemann used a new vial at each successive stage of potentisation, adding one drop of the previous potency to 99 drops of carrier substance. 10 hits onto a leather book while holding the vial in the hand marked one potentisation stage. Korsakov shook the vial mechanically and emptied it at each stage.

There have been concerns over the prescribing of Korsakovian homeopathic remedies..apparently these reduced the action span and prescribing potential of the remedy as they contain every potency up to the final… Some say this takes away treatment potential if a patient ingests all of the potencies up to the intended one… some say remedies are thus stronger than those of Hahnemann,… others say they are no different… any thoughts? Do you chose to buy Korsakov remedies?? Are they different? Do patients react differently to those remedies?

A non-representative survey was conducted on a social networking site to identify homeopaths thoughts on Korsakovian remedies.

The discussion question: Do you consider prescribing Korsakovian remedies as a stand alone homeopathic approach?

Possible answers were:

* There is no difference between Korsakov and Hahnemannian remedies.

* Korsakov remedies are weaker than Hahnemannian remedies.

* Yes, I think prescribing Korsakov homeopathic potencies is an approach of its own.

* Korsakov remedies are stronger!

Outcomes were as follows:


The discussion highlighted that there must be remnants of previous succussions contained in each Korsakovian remedy.

It was pointed out that an empty glass vial of a remedy if filled with carrier substance produced an effective remedy, but strenghts of such remedies were noticed to vary.

It was argued that the Korsakovian process of potentisation makes a remedy stronger, due to the force that in the event is imparted onto the vial.

It was stressed, that today most manufacturers of homeopathic remedies use machines to produce potencies and as such are actually creating Korsakovian potencies albeit labling them as Hahnemannian.

It was further advised that Hahnemann used alcoholic carrier substance for each potency, while Korsakov only used alcohol at the first and last potency level. In between Korsakov diluted and succussed in water.