Unfortunately this is the usual course of action with very many professional homeopaths. Many professionals treat and treat and treat, and then they report: “The patient was better with this remedy, and better with that remedy, and better with that remedy…”
You look at the case after ten years, and you look at the initial complaint. First he had headaches, etc. And what does he have now, after ten years of treatment? Headaches, etc.! So: What is that? What is “better”? It is not enough to be able to say: “The patient is better.” In the video-course you will see what you have to expect in order to be able to say: “This case is really doing better.”
You must see certain things, recognize certain phenomena in progressed cases, before you can say: “The case is doing better.”
And what is the difference between this kind of treatment and another kind of treatment? The difference is that I know this remedy is correct and that I have to let it act. I have to let this remedy act until the next picture develops. But instead – something we often see during the phase of aggravation, which most cases have – we mostly tend to give another remedy and another remedy during the period of aggravation.
What are you doing if you give one remedy after the other during the aggravation time, in order to stop the aggravation? Of course, the patient is complaining of some minor or bigger things, which ever. But if you know your remedy is acting, you have to wait and to see up to which level your patient will go.
And only then do you interfere. So the time you interfere is very important. Because if you interfere prematurely, you are spoiling the good work that has been done by prescribing correctly.