ONE remedy per patient's disease = a disease/pathological entity/phenomenon
as modified by the physiology/vitality/Ki/Prana/Jedi force/whatever you call
it/ of the patient.
Julian Winston used to write: it is not important that the patient has
measles, but how the patient is measling..........
Therefore a patient may suffer from "a form of what we call eczema since
childhood", get the measles last week, fall in the stairs today and as a
result be fired from work leading to anger, frustration, grief and anxiety
about the future.....
One single remedy for all that? I don't think so.
One remedy for each condition in the order of relevance and importance to
the patient, with a tentative order of going from recent to old, superficial
to deep.
Where does a complex/combo fit here? Bone injury, fracture, I would give
Calc Phos and Symphytum together to speed healing, adding Ruta as the
periosteum is always injured. I would NOT consider Bryonia as a trauma is
always aggravated locally by motion but would use it SEPARATELY if the
PATIENT feels better while not moving or RHUS TOX also separately if he is
pacing around, especially if those remedies also fit his mental state after
having been fired...........and separately because he might need just a few
doses while the "bone combo" will remain indicated at least 2-3 weeks.
And yes, I do consider Calc Phos, Symphytum and Ruta to be each
homeopathically similar to the injury situation. Similar means resemblance
and by the same token there are differences, the similarity is not the same
for each remedy, hence bridging the gap of the differences and allowing a
better, faster, deeper repair.
Is this theorising? Yes
Has that been proved? No
Does that work in practice? Yes and that is what I am interested in, not in
psychobabbling.........
Clear??????????????
Helpful????????????
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
-------Original Message-------
From: Irene de Villiers
Date: 28/12/2011 11:31:55 p.m.
To: homeo list
Subject: Re: [H] Combos and complexes
On Dec 27, 2011, at 6:10 PM, John Harvey wrote:
>
> Hello, Irene --
Most frustratingly, the "who said what" of this conversation gets lost on
hitting reply on your emails.
I:
> 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.
J:
> What he said or did not say in regard to this cannot found an illogical
leap of any kind.
It did not. And what I wrote was Hahnemann's "logic or illogic", not mine:-)
> As it happens, Hahnemann made abundantly clear [1] that only one medicine
is necessary or could be countenanced by any rational physician,
On the contrary, I quoted where he said otherwise - in the case of complex
disease.
> 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
Are you suggesting that Hahnemann's "utterances" are to be set aside in
order to better accommodate your personal interpretation of his work?
> I have read what you go on to say below.
Thank you.
> 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.
Excuse me but that is not so, as I also was careful to quote Hahnemann's
insistence that EACH remedy meet the law of similars, and be suited to the
laws of cure and to the patient, and be given *individually* (not in a
mixture).
Polypharmacy is about mixtures. And it is about mixtures make without any
attempt to match the patient's symptoms - - as in the three ways Hahnemann
lists as ways to use medicine - this being the third - allopathic.
I agree this is not a disease in the allopathic sense, but in the
Hahnemannian sense, where there is a cause and a resultant disease.
But the rest is clear enough in Hahnemann's words, when you combine the
quoted areas I used.
> I think we're agreed on this
Looks like it:-)
I like to stay with Hahnemann's wording wherever possible, as when that is
rephrased, it is more readily open to misinterpretation.
> , 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.
Which is why I added an example.
> 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.
Again I prefer Hahnemann's wording on ALL THREE "only ways" to use medicines
- as less open to misinterpretation. He says "can produce the symptoms of
the patient" ....not the way you worded it.
Also his list has three options, not four or more. THere's no "other".
If it is not the first two, then it is unrelated to the patient's symptoms
and is allopathy.
Being related to the patient's symptoms (whether able to produce, or being
similar or opposite) it is homeopathic....it obeys the law of Similars.
If I is unrelated to the patient's symptoms, it is allopathy.
That is really all we need to differentiate between homeopathy and
non-homeopathy.
> Here, I take it, you must be referring to the early section of the Organon
I quoted the aphorism number (see my number above from the last email) and
Hahnemann would turn in his grave of he thought you wished to ignore the
first part of the Organon :-)
Do so at your own risk:-)
> , in which Hahnemann does not yet distinguish the effects of enantiopathy
(treatment by opposites) from those of homoeopathy.
Before Aph 22, he described the application of *an opposite* as allopathy.
His work makes it clear to what he refers. It's to a remedy that PRODUCES a
similar or oppsite - not to a remedy which IS an opposite of the symptom. So
it's allopathy to apply heat to a cold area or vice versa, or to wet skin
that is dry or vice versa.
But to apply a remedy that produces (in a healthy individual) an opposite or
similar - is a different concept form the application of a direct opposite.
>
> 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.
However in practice one can not always distinguish between all of these.
They can become "intricated" as I suggested in my example.
SO it takes some skill to determine what diseases are present and how to
best match their remedy to them.
> 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).
Or some of each - all depending what disease/s is/are presently active at
the time.
> I: 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".
>
> J: 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. This is implicit in the meaning of the term
homoeopathy.
And the term judicious, or for complex disease "judicious ALTERNATION" :-)
And the phrase "each given in the most suitable doses and form."
I see no problem using H's words here too. They are nice and clear.
...............
J:
> 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
Not true. It needs "judicious alternation" of the multiple remedies for
multiple coexisting diseases.
Many remedies can be acting at one time, one for each disease being treated.
Remedies can have a long duration of action and each has its own duration,
some may be short, some long, but as Hahnemann says, each is dosed
judiciously according to its need for its corresponding disease.
(See his original wording).
Remedies are alternated as needed - but EACH is individually assessed as to
how often to dose it.
I:
> For example (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.
>
J:
> Yes, Vithoulkas has published observations to this effect .
I:
> 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.
J:
> 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
Again - this is not so.
Several remedies can be active at one time during "judicious alternation" of
them. They are just not dosed in a mixture. They are dosed individually, so
that individual dose amount and dose frequency and dose potency can be
properly managed.
For example in a typical FIP case with steroid disease:
I start the steroid at 34C, three times a day, and I start the simillimum
for FIP at 5C usually, once or twice a day depending on response to it.
The steroid will not usually need a higher potency for a week or so, and
continues at 34C three doses a day. Meantime during that same week, the
simillimum for FIP may change after a day to 8C, maybe once a day and a few
days later to 13C, maybe every 2nd day - the dose frequency totally
dependent on the individual case and patient response. (In FIP, which can
kill by either Fp or by steroid in a matter of 2 days, such fast dosing is
typically needed for survival to be possible.)
So, after a week, several doses of each remedy for each disease, have been
given, each dosed judiciously according to need, alternating as appropriate,
and in line with its individual disease dosing requirements. BOTH remedies
are thus acting at any given time during that week, as is appropriate per
Hahenemann's explanation for dosing in complex disease. To repeat that
aspect from Hahnemann:
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"
In other words - each remedy must be dosed individually according to the
patient's need for it for a specific disease. And that's what I do and it
works.
> 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".
Your interpretation?
Hahnemann explains it better to my way of thinking. Each disease may need a
matched remedy. That matched remedy for its disease, must be given according
to the principles of homeopathy, and dosed correctly - in the most suitable
dose and form.
A THE SAME TIME - another remedy for a simultaneous disease, can ALSO be
dosed according to its need for its disease.
But the remedies may not be mixed as they need individual judgement on
dosing for individual diseases BOTH acting at the same time therefore BOTH
needing remedy at the same time (otherwise one of the diseases will kill the
patient while the other is addressed) - thus they are "judiciously
alternated" remedies for simultaneous (complex) diseases.
I:
> 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,
Well nobody advocates pretending there are two patients. But is IS advisable
to treat the two diseases with independently chosen and dosed remedies.
More than one disease will respond due to interdependence of organs in the
body, despite their having different diseases so that dosing adjustments
must be made on the basis of total response, and not only specific disease
response.
But in fact both disease (or all complex diseases active at a time) MUST be
treated at the same time with remedy - meaning more than one remedy will be
active - in order to address the diseases AT THE SAME TIME, lest the patient
die from any neglected one, while others get attention. It's why Hahnemann
uses the term "alternating judiciously" for the dosing.
That IS the point you missed as I thought :-)
> one might prescribe a medicine for each,
as Hahnemann says one needs to do yes, in a complex disease :-)
> and thereby lapse ignorantly into polypharmacy.
One medicine for each disease is NOT polypharmacy.
It is ONE medicine per disease, (alternating) as advised by Hahnemann :-)
Polypharmacy is 2 or more mixed remedies per disease with no regard for La
of Similars.
I:
> Hahnemann wants a single medicine for a disease, not for the "entirety of
an illness" (John's words quoted) before one.
> Too many modern complex diseases present themselves needing a remedy for
EACH disease present.
>
>
J:
> 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
He was talking about a patient with a single disease.
In complex disease he always specifies a single medicine PER DISEASE - using
more than one at a time, alternating. He points out that it is impossible to
treat a complex disease with a single remedy.
It makes the complex disease incurable. (And it usually was incurable to him
On the rare occasion he claims effective approach it is with multiple
individual alternating remedies, one per disease, NOT one at a time to
completion then another - the patient would be long dead violating Hahnemann
s principle of highest goal to CURE the patient - but alternating and still
using the correct dosing for each.)
I:
> 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 affecting it, each from a
different cause.
> Whatever the case, each disease, needs its matched homeopathic remedy.
J:
> Now is when we reap our reward for remaining clear on all the distinctions
drawn earlier.
Except you misunderstand the approach needed for complex disease (where
multiple diseases are present - an area which Hahnemann referred to but did
not include in his general explanations of treatment - only in the aphorisms
I referred to - as he considered these generally incurable as he also states
in the APhorisms I referred to.)
YOUR quotes on general ideas on treatment, are for individual diseses
occurring one per individual -= the ones Hahnemann was at pains to teach
others how to cure and HE felt they were curable - they do not apply to the
complex diseases he called incurable, and for which he advised judicious
alternation of suitably selected remedies, one per disease.
So ... one can not build on a misunderstanding - (namely lack of
understanding that complex disease DOES need multiple remedies for multiple
diseases given in "the most suitable alternating doses" all acting at the
same time ) - without getting totally confused notions.
So I'll stop here.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen