Is surgery ever needed?

[Dr. Jeff]

This is an intriguing topic. Surgery is only unavoidable in a few situations, e.g. after big traumas, fractures, etc.

I'd recommend everyone take a look at human surgeon Edmund Carleton's <a href="https://www.narayana-verlag.com/homeopathy/pdf/Homoeopathy-in-Medicine-Surgery-Edmund-Carleton.01331_1.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">book</a> as we continue to discuss this topic. He's a homeopath and surgeon who rarely found the need for surgery. Even in acute appendicitis!

Dr. Jeff

 

[Dr. Jeff]

<blockquote>This is an interesting topic for me, as I’ve just had my dog Raven’s left rear leg amputated due to osteosarcoma. She was in hellish pain and had a pathological fracture so I really had no choice, but I caught some fairly harsh criticism from a couple of “homeopaths” online.

This is my first dog ever who had cancer, so it’s not something I have any real experience with. But I have talked to a number of homeopaths, and have also read the book “A Homeopathic Approach to Cancer” by Dr. Ramakrishnan and Catherine Coulter.

Dr. Ramakrishnan is a classical homeopath (strict) and an MD in India, who has, through painstaking trial and error over many years, developed an alternate system of dosing for cancer (and ONLY cancer). I’ve been involved for two years with a study group working with this method, and am trying it now on Raven. I’ll post more about that in the homeopathy forum

But back to the surgery issue.

Dr. R has found that his patients who have their tumors removed or debulked do BETTER than the patients who do not. He finds that they still respond very well to homeopathy. That they can be cured.

In some ways, this does fly in the face of homeopathic theory that by suppressing something (in this case the tumor), we’re going to drive the disease deeper. And I don’t pretend to know why that’s not so (if it’s really not) with cancer. One could argue that most cancers are already just about as “deep” as disease ever gets, although an inoperable brain tumor is clearly “deeper” than a small basal cell carcinoma.

Dr. R indicates, although he does not dwell on it at any length, that the key to cancer treatment is TIME. That cancer is aggressive, and anything that buys time to treat is a good thing, and that surgery buys you that time without preventing future homeopathic treatment.

The basis of his protocol for cancer is also that time is of the essence, that we don’t have the luxury of taking a “wait and see” approach, but need to basically hammer the cancer.

I have treated Raven constitutionally as well as with the cancer protocol since her diagnosis and since her amputation, and I can confirm that she responds in a completely typical way to remedies and I have seen absolutely no signs that her vital force has been disrupted or suppressed or locked into a disease pattern. Indeed, her constant and agonizing pain clouded the picture considerably prior to the amputation, and had I been willing to let her go on like that while I tried to cure her cancer, someone should have shot me for making her suffer like that.

On the subject of surgery, should you or shouldn’t you, but not related to cancer, I remember years ago Dr. Pitcairn saying that we should never, ever spay or neuter an animal while they are having any form of reproductive system health problems, because we can make those problems incurable, but that spays and neuters on healthy animals generally do not cause problems.</blockquote>

 

[Dr. Jeff]

Hi Christie-

I caught some fairly harsh criticism from a couple of “homeopaths” online.

That’s not very nice or professional. You’re in a very difficult and stressful situation. I know, my own 14 year old dog recently had his eye removed due to malignant melanoma.

it’s not something I have any real experience with.

That’s the way it should be.

Unfortunately the diagnosis of cancer in pets has skyrocketed. Inbreeding, vaccinations, poor diet, suppression of symptoms, drugs, environmental factors, etc. all play a role. At least three generations of naturally reared, unvaccinated or suppressed animals will be necessary to make a dent in the cancer rate in dogs.

In addition, we are all constantly exposed to cancer-causing agents while turning away from factors that can help reduce cancer, e.g sunshine and outdoor air. In his 2004 book Cancer-Gate:
http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/cancer-gate.php Dr. Samuel Epstein details how (and why) we are losing the war on cancer.

In brief, he says that we are trying to find a cure for the uncurable (except for short-term results and in specific cancer types). Chemotherapy and radiation are well known to cause cancer. Basically Epstein says that cancer can and should be prevented (actually he says a lot more than that but the commentary about that topic is more political and not appropriate for this forum).

In some ways, this does fly in the face of homeopathic theory that by suppressing something (in this case the tumor), we’re going to drive the disease deeper. And I don’t pretend to know why that’s not so (if it’s really not) with cancer.

Theoretically that is true. Suppression however is really better understood from the point of view of the hierarchy of symptoms. We should have this discussion in the homeopathy folder and not here but basically you already showed that you have some understanding of the answer.

One reason that a tumor on the skin is not equivalent to a tumor of the brain is because of the relative importance of the tissues/organs involved. It is also a direct statement about the strength or weakness of the Vital Force (which allows the disease penetration in the first place).

I have treated Raven constitutionally as well as with the cancer protocol since her diagnosis and since her amputation, and I can confirm that she responds in a completely typical way to remedies and I have seen absolutely no signs that her vital force has been disrupted or suppressed

I remember years ago Dr. Pitcairn saying that we should never, ever spay or neuter an animal while they are having any form of reproductive system health problems, because we can make those problems incurable, but that spays and neuters on healthy animals generally do not cause problems.

In the first case the tumor is almost a separate entity from the VF. The only active symptom (pain) was a pathological symptom and therefore not very helpful for finding the remedy.

In the second case however the VF is actively participating in creating the symptom, e.g perhaps a vaginal/preputial discharge or maybe an objectionable behavior. By squelching the expression of the VF, e.g. by suppressing the discharge or neutering to stop intermale aggression, you weaken the VF.

Does that make sense?

Dr. Jeff