“Streptococcal Pharyngitis” Clarifications

Anthony Capobianco, DO Didactic

The content of this website is not to be misconstrued as medical advice nor does it replace the consult of a physician or practitioner. Reader assumes the responsibility of investigating for themselves disease prevention and treatment methodologies that concur with their beliefs and understanding. The suggested protocol at the end of this page is for informational purposes and the reader assumes the risks and benefits of undertaking the protocol unless overseen by a qualified practitioner.

Dear Editor;

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the AIH for recently publishing my article entitled A Homeopathic Approach to Streptococcal Pharyngitis. A couple of points, however, deserve clarification. It could be construed from reading the abstract that my method was in some way related to Dr. Ramakrishnan’s work. This approach to streptococcal pharyngitis evolved entirely independent of his teachings. I referenced him in conjunction with the method because his rationale for the indication of a specific remedy in the face of potentially severe pathology was a reference-able source from homeopathic literature which seemed to offer support for my method. His writings were discovered well after the fact, but gave credence to and were relevant to the method I developed.

Dr. Ramakrishnan’s plussing regimen is not regulated or altered according to a day to day patient response, initially utilizes two remedies in alternate fashion (as opposed to a combination), the first of his two preferably constitutional, and he is emphatic that his technique not to be used for any pathology other than cancer. Also, ten successions are used instead of his one and the time intervals between dosing are clearly more flexible. It is not uncommon for homeopaths to employ remedies that historically have consistent clinical success in acute illnesses, especially when a case lacks in guiding symptoms (to which the AIH editorship wisely underscored the preference of constitutional prescribing when at all possible), a common scenario in pediatric cases. Furthermore, in the postscript, Dr. Ramakrishnan was acknowledged with gratitude as my primary teacher in homeopathy primarily because his method for prescribing in neoplasia arrested the growth of a craniopharyngeoma my brother was diagnosed with, now four years ago.

Due to a publication timeline, I was unable to include that the case of the child with ecthyma, towards the end of the article, had the Sulphur symptoms of craving for sweets and was warm blooded. From this missing addendum, it might also be misconstrued that I do not strive to prescribe according to a totality of constitutional symptoms.

Anthony Capobianco, DO