Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is the fastest-growing disorder in the world. There is much misinformation surrounding its diagnosis such as what’s the most effective treatment and what’s the cause of autism.
This webinar series is designed to provide Practitioners with the most up to date information on what is known about the diagnosis and how to treat it homeopathically. Dr. Bidani, in an effort to separate fact from myth, will present research, current scientific findings, and clinical observations. Bringing his expert experience to the table, the focus of this webinar is to provide you with the foundation of familiarization of Autism Spectrum Disorder, along with understanding the learning, social, communication and behavioral needs of individuals exhibiting ASD. It will also provide you with an understanding of an Autistic child’s individuality and how you would use this information to treat these patients. The case studies he will share will clearly illustrate how to select a constitutional remedy by adopting an easy to understand approach. The webinar is a combination of lecture, discussion and time for participant questions.
Come join us for this eye-opening webinar where the expert knowledge shared is a must-have in treating today’s juvenile demographic. As Practitioners treating our communities, it’s our duty to improve our knowledge and be the best healers we can be. We look forward to you joining us.
This is a 2 part Intensive training in Homeopathic Management of Austism Spectrum Disorder.
Partcipants will have a clear understanding of ASD
A Homeopathic Approach of Autism
Miasmatic Differentiation in Autism
Rubric Consideration in Autism
Online Webinar Date : Sunday, January 19th &Sunday, 26th January, 2020
Time: Sunday, January 19, 2020 – 11:00 AM EST to 1:00 PM EST & Sunday, Januray 26, 2020 – 11:00 AM EST to 1:00 PM EST
Attend this 2 part online webinar from the comfort of your home.
About the Speaker: Dr.Navneet Bidani., BHMS., MD (HOM), M Sc(Psy) A 3rd generation homeopath, Dr. Navneet Bidani has a successful track record of treating thousands of patients suffering from acute and chronic diseases with homoeopathy and psycho-therapy over the last 14 years. He has extensive knowledge relating to human psychology, personality disorders, psychosis and stress apart from other physical complaints. A respected mentor who is specialist in homoeopathic repertorisation and case-taking. He has excellent communications and problem solving skills and he swiftly identifies the root cause of any problem and develops effective solutions. Dr. Navneet Bidani has always been interested in teaching, mentoring, child psychology and academic activities. Spreading the knowledge about right and healthy living in the society, organizing seminars and awareness camps is his biggest passion since graduation.
A renowned author, and have written more than 100 articles on the subject of mental health, human psychology, homoeopathy and associated matter for dailies and National as well as International Medical Journals and earned good reviews from readers on patient-care.
BCAH on Facebook
Great information to share!A good time to share this post again... “There is no scientific evidence that homeopathy works”
This is probably the most frequently quoted, completely inaccurate statement about homeopathy. Homeopathy research is a relatively new field, so it’s true to say that there are not a huge number of studies, but some evidence is very different from no evidence.
By the end of 2014, 189 randomised controlled trials of homeopathy on 100 different medical conditions had been published in peer-reviewed journals. Of these, 104 papers were placebo-controlled and were eligible for detailed review:
41% were positive (43 trials) – finding that homeopathy was effective 5% were negative (5 trials) – finding that homeopathy was ineffective 54% were inconclusive (56 trials)
How does this compare with evidence for conventional medicine?
An analysis of 1016 systematic reviews of RCTs of conventional medicine had strikingly similar findings:
44% were positive – the treatments were likely to be beneficial 7% were negative – the treatments were likely to be harmful 49% were inconclusive – the evidence did not support either benefit or harm.
Although the percentages of positive, negative and inconclusive results are similar in homeopathy and conventional medicine, it is important to recognise a vast difference in the quantity of research carried out; chart A represents 189 individual trials on homeopathy, whereas chart B represents 1016 reviews on conventional medicine, each analysing multiple trials.
This highlights the need for more research in homeopathy, particularly large-scale high quality repetitions of the most promising positive studies.
The difference in quantity is also not surprising when one considers the tiny amounts of funding made available for research into ‘complementary and alternative medicine’ (CAM). For example, in the UK only 0.0085% of the total medical research budget is spent on CAM, of which homeopathy is only one example.