On 27 December 2011 13:02, Irene de Villiers <furryboots@icehouse.net>wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2011, at 3:35 PM, John Harvey wrote:
>
> > I do apologise, but I'm not understanding your argument here at all. Are
> > you suggesting that in order to differentiate homoeopathy's practice from
> > other practices, we would need to understand exactly its mechanism?
>
> If I may chip in with a view:
>
> Hahnemann went as far as posible in trying to cure diseese, but he found
> many situatons incurable.
> We have needed to develop homeopathy further in order to cure what
> Hahemann fond incutrable, and Joe and I and others have achieved this in
> some areas. (Joe in more areas than me). We both use the principles of cure
> of Hahnemann.
> He did not say only one remedy was needed, and he did not say the entire
> organism must be addressed by one remedy always either.
>
What he said or did not say in regard to this cannot found an illogical
leap of any kind. As it happens, Hahnemann made abundantly clear [1] that
only one medicine is necessary or could be countenanced by any rational
physician, in particular by any practice that could be regarded as
homoeopathy. But what should make us utterly clear on this point
regardless of those utterances is the meaning of homoeopathy itself and all
that it implies in its utter simplicity.
I have read what you go on to say below. What I say here, I do not write
in ignorance of the direction you take in this discussion. I say it
because it must remain clear at all points in this discussion whether we
are talking about homoeopathy, which requires knowledge, or about blind
prescribing. Your statement "He did not say only one remedy was needed,
and he did not say the entire organism must be addressed by one remedy
always either" is easily interpretable as supporting polypharmacy rather
than serial prescription. So the necessity for clear discussion demands
clarifying that
(a) though it be unnecessary and counterproductive to confine one's entire
treatment of a patient to sole use of a single medicine,
(b) such freedom offers no excuse for using more than one medicine
to simultaneously influence the patient in the treatment of a single
disease -- and I use that word *not* in the allopathic sense, by which that
asthma is a "disease" and eczema is another "disease", but in the strictly
homoeopathic sense, by which all illnesses arising from the one cause
constitute parts of the same disease -- or for any other reason -- and
(c) such freedom offers too no excuse for prescribing at any time a
medicine without consulting the state of the patient -- meaning the
*entire*patient -- meaning multiple diseases and all.
I think we're agreed on this, but, again, previous experience in these
discussions underscores the value of maintaining clarity as to the context
of references to multiple medicines in order to forestall rather than
promote confusion.
What he did do was to declare that there are three ways to use medicines
> (see Aph 22 for his wording), summarized in my wording unless in quotes:
> * a remedy is *capable* of cure if it can produce the symptoms of the
> patient.
>
Let's keep sight of this. We can know this capability of a medicine only
if we can know what symptoms it produces.
* to cure "the totality of the symptoms of the disease to be cured",
> requires a remedy with a "tendency to produce similar or opposite symptoms".
>
Here, I take it, you must be referring to the early section of the *Organon*,
in which Hahnemann does not yet distinguish the effects of enantiopathy
(treatment by opposites) from those of homoeopathy.
* all else is allopathy where symptoms of the medicine "have no direct
> pathological relation" to the diseased state.
>
Yes, including (since this is discussing *how* medicine is practised rather
than *what* the medicinal relationships in fact are):
(a) any prescription of a medicine of unknown primary effect and
(b) any prescription without a basis in knowledge of the patient's state
of illness.
This too we must keep in sight!
There is no insistence that one remedy will cure the entire individual. It
> will cure one disease.
> It is a very important distinction.
>
Agreed. So is the distinction between *one disease* and one *symptom*, *
condition*, *syndrome*, or *pathological state*. Again, we are speaking
here not of the possibility of using more than one single medicine at a
time in treating the patient merely because he or she suffers from multiple
conditions, but of the possibility of using a series of single, simple
medicines *as each is indicated* in the course of the predominant state of
derangement (disease or trauma).
Hahnemann recognizes there may be more than one disease in an individual,
> and that when this occurs it is frequently due to allopathy and it is also
> frequently incurable. (See Aph 41 and 52, 75, 149, 244, 276) .......... of
> which I'll quote the short one, Aph 75:
> .............................................
> § 75
> These inroads on human health effected by the allopathic non-healing art
> (more particularly in recent times) are of all chronic diseases the most
> deplorable, the most incurable; and I regret to add that it is apparently
> impossible to discover or to hit upon any remedies for their cure when they
> have reached any considerable height.
> ...........................................
>
> THAT was Hahnemann's main sticking point - and is the main area for
> homeopathy evolution since his time.
>
> Hahnemann also says (Aph 40), that where a cure is attempted, where more
> than one disease is present, each disease needs its *own* remedy, given "by
> a judicious alternation" and "each given in the most suitable dose and
> form".
>
And by "judicious" he implicitly and explicitly means for such medicinal
alternation to be considered on the basis of the patient's present state,
not to be done blindly [2]. This is implicit in the meaning of the term
homoeopathy.
This further clarifies the point that Hahnemann recognizes the need for one
> remedy for one disease - and not one remedy for one individual.
>
Yes.
Hahnemann abhors the increasing occurrence of incurable complex diseases,
> initiated by inappropriate use of allopathic medicines.
> Aph 149 "...More especially do the chronic medicinal dyscrasia so often
> produced by allopathic bungling, along with the natural disease left
> uncured by it, require a much longer time for their recovery; often,
> indeed, are they incurable."
>
> Again - one sees the frustratiom Hahnemann felt at the limitations of the
> system, especially where more than one disease was present in an
> individual.....it again reinforces the need to evolve beetter techniqes,
> better methods, better ways to use the principles we have.
>
Yes -- bearing in mind always that, if we discard its sole requisite
principle, we are doing something *other* than homoeopathy.
These multiple disease complex presentations of "incurable" disese, are
> what I deal with daily.... Except I have developed ways of effecting
> restoration of health, by adding some techniques in the use of remedies
> (See my two papers in Hpathy on FIP), some of which are mine, and some of
> which Joe developed (Fibonacci series, also see Hpathy papers and Joe's
> book "The Potency" for details).
>
> In all cases, what Hahnmemann describes as the ONLY way to cure - is used,
> that of law of similars, and the use of matched remedy.
> But the techniques of application are more developed.
> And indeed there can be multiple diseases present - *each* needing the
> proper remedy.
>
Let's remain clear that in homoeopathic practice, *the patient* is brought
under the medicinal influence of exactly one medicine at one time,
regardless of the number of diseases he or she labours under (and therefore
regardless of the number of medicines that may eventually be required over
the entire course of treatment).
For exanple (and this is not published yet) a previously incurable illness,
> when treated by allopathy with steroids, causes an additional worse disease
> to develop due to the steroid.
Yes, Vithoulkas has published observations to this effect [3].
This indeed needs multiple remedies to resolve - so as to overcome both the
> "steroid disease", and the original "FIP disease". And in fact there are
> more diseses behind that, one of which caused immune system damage - an
> immune system disease whose total symptoms need to be addressed as well as
> a specific disease.
>
> So - Complex diseases can have more than two simultaneous diseses, and
> there's no way to address that with a single remedy. (Per me, per
> Hahnemann, per Joe, per the principles of the law of similars which always
> apply to "total symptoms of a disease" and not to "total symptoms of a
> patient" - Hahnemann's words.
>
Again, let us be absolutely clear: there may be no way to address the
complex of two diseases with a single course of treatment. And there is no
suggestion in Hahnemann's findings; in the definition of homoeopathy; or in
necessity, that the patient should be brought under the medicinal influence
of more than one single, simple substance at a time, and there is no
suggestion that doing so could be, as Hahnemann put it so well [4],
rational or permissible within homoeopathic treatment.
And it is Hahnemann's idea to give a "juducious remedy" for each, not
> mixed, but alternating, each at their own dose requirements.
>
And it is his express idea that it must be prescribed upon the constant
rational basis of the patient's present state [2]. That is clearly part of
what he means by "judicious".
The remedy for each needs to be specific and homeopathic per law of
> simlars, and needs to be individually dosed as Hahnemann says - in
> judicious alternation and each in the most suitable dose and form.
>
> The point:
> I suspect you may have confused "total symptoms of a disease" with "total
> symptoms of a patient".
>
Not at all, though I appreciate the basis of your concern. But if one were
treat two diseases occurring simultaneously in the one patient as though
they were occurring simultaneously in different patients, one might
prescribe a medicine for each, and thereby lapse ignorantly into
polypharmacy. That's the ever-present danger in thinking carelessly on
this topic.
Hahnemann wants a single medicine for a disease, not for the entirety of an
> illness before one.
Too many modern complex diseases present themselves needing a remedy for
> EACH disease present.
>
Again, it is crucial that this not lapse into or be subject to confusions,
either:
• between "entirety of the patient's complex of diseases" and "entirety of
an illness" (which might lead one to prescribe for each "illness" rather
than for each *disease*)
or
• between the requirement for a new medicine for each disease *as it
becomes predominant* and illusory misunderstanding of need a different
medicine for various diseases *simultaneously*.
Hahnemann could not have been clearer than he was in making explicit his
requirement that the disease state predominating at any one time must be
the sole guide to the single medicine most suitable [2].
It happens frequently that more than one organ has a disease, each with a
> different cause, each needing a remedy matched to the disease. You can even
> have one organ with more than one disease afecting it, each from a differnt
> casue.
> Whatever the case, each disease, needs its matched homeopathic remedy.
>
Now is when we reap our reward for remaining clear on all the distinctions
drawn earlier. For now we can see that no organ has a disease; its state
of illness can be no more discrete than a pathological state peculiar to
its nature and to its place in the disease afflicting the entire individual
if it is due to that, or to its being the seat of trauma otherwise.
Because we have clearly understood Hahnemann's intent to distinguish an
entire disease from convenient agglomerations of symptoms or lumps of flesh
[5], because we have clearly understood that a single disease corresponds
to a single dynamic state, we have a clear basis for comprehending that it
would not be sane, let alone advisable, and could not occur within
homoeopathy, that the patient should be treated with more than a single,
simple medicine at one time [4].
ALL the presenting diseases need to be handled. Not just the last one of
> FIP.
> The chances of finding a single remedy to overcome all six diseases are
> historically zero, as confirmed by the Organon refs listed in thisd email.
> The first success after FIP (and whatever diseases presented with it), was
> in 2003. It needed a new way of using remedies.
> Success increases as homeopathy evolves to allow new techniques.
>
Homoeopathy has always allowed new techniques. It is non-prescriptive
except with regard to the singular implications of its sole principle.
It's not a change in the use of homeopathy as a law of siilars cure system
> - that remains - it's an evolution of techniques by which to cure diseaseS
> - whether presenting singly or "intricated" (a term I borrowed from Joe; I
> think it fits this concept well).
>
Again, I trust that we remain clear:
(a) that such *serial* treatment of discrete *entire* disease states
remains, as it always has, within the bounds of homoeopathy -- and
(b) that *simultaneous* treatment of *any* number of states by *more* than
a single, simple medicine remains, as it always has, without [4].
Kind regards,
John
[1] § 7, fn 4: "A single one of the symptoms present is no more the disease
itself than a single foot is the man himself."
[2] § 168: "And thus we go on, if even this medicine be not quite
sufficient to effect the restoration of health, *examining again and again
the morbid state that still remains*, and selecting a homoeopathic medicine
as suitable as possible for it, until our object, namely, putting the
patient in the possession of perfect health, is accomplished."
§ 169: "If… the totality… would not be effectually covered by the disease
elements of a single medicine -- owing to the insufficient number of known
medicines -- but that two medicines contend for the preference in point of
appropriateness *it is not advisable, after the employment of the more
suitable of the two medicines, to administer the other without fresh
examination*, and much less to give both together (§ 272, note), for the
medicine that [had] seemed to be the next best would not, under the change
of circumstances that has in the meantime taken place, be suitable for the
rest of the symptoms that then remain; in which case, consequently, a more
appropriate homoeopathic remedy must be selected in place of the second
medicine for the set of symptoms as they appear on a new inspection."
§ 170: "Hence in this as in every case where a change of the morbid state
has occurred, *the remaining set of symptoms now present must be enquired
into*, and (without paying any attention to the medicine which at first
[had] appeared to be the next in point of suitableness) another
homoeopathic medicine, as appropriate as possible to the new state now
before us, must be selected."
§ 171: "In non-venereal chronic diseases… we often require, in order to
effect a cure, to give several antipsoric remedies in succession, every
successive one being homoeopathically chosen in consonance with the group
of symptoms remaining after completion of the action of the previous
remedy."
[3] George Vithoulkas, *The Science of Homoeopathy*.
[4] § 273: "In no case under treatment is it necessary [or] therefore *
permissible* to administer to a patient more than one single, simple
medicinal substance at one time."
§ 274: "[The true physician] will… never think of giving as a remedy any
but a single, simple medicinal substance; for these reasons also, because…
it is [nevertheless] impossible to foresee how two and more medicinal
substances might, when compounded, hinder and alter each other's action on
the human body… and supposing the worst case to happen, that it was not
chosen in strict conformity to similarity of symptoms, and therefore does
no good, it is [nevertheless] so far useful that it promotes our knowledge
of therapeutic agents… by the new symptoms excited by it in such a case… an
advantage that is lost by the employment of all compound remedies."
[5] § 7, fn 4: "A single one of the symptoms present is no more the disease
itself than a single foot is the man himself."
--
"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments,
guided by such ideas, would be very different places."
—Paul Ginsborg, *Democracy: Crisis and Renewal*, London: Profile, 2008.
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen