Monthly Archives: March 2014

Homeopathy the Therapy.

Homeopathic medicine, the THERAPY as defined and delineated by Samuel Hahnemann, is a thoroughly tested application of the law of Similars. For those of us who have put time into research, and followed the logic and seen reproducible results time and time again, it is a little sad when we receive mail from people who claim the rank and position of a homoeopath for many years and yet have no foundation or basis for belief in what they do.

Received:

I could have written your reply for you it was so predictable. Are you aware of how many weird ways of using homeopathic remedies there are whose proponents would say “Its researched applied application of a principle that has been tested and tried and categorized into a system that works.” It is impossible for them all to be correct as their methods so often contradict each other. So what makes you more right then anyone else? How many ways of using remedies have you put to a proper scientific test? Thais my point. You can shout all you like about being the guardian of the truth and spout all the book learned philosophy you like, but your “nonsense” response only confirms what I said about religion-like belief rather than open minded investigation and questioning. Im honest enough to say there is a lot I dont know about the workings of homeopathy. Thats not because Im an inferior practitioner as you are suggesting, its because I have spent 3 decades thinking very deeply about the subject and still have a lot of unanswered questions. For many homeopaths the possibility that they may not be the owners of the ‘truth’ is too scary to even consider so they just get angry and defensive in conversations like this. I dont expect any different from you but it is quite sad really.

There is a whole mess of thinking that is based on the hidden interior of mans inabilty to ‘explain things’ so reference is made from the ‘spiritual world’ like dreams, visions, divine revelation, mystic rituals etc, which takes a complex issue and puts it into the realm of old time-folk wisdom. It demystifies the unknown into acceptable pockets of comprehension but uses all the complexity of esoteric analogies and delusions to leave a person with “an answer”

Sadly all that has happened is that an individual is left with the firm conviction of his or her own uselessness and inability to think through the issue because it of the futility of doing so.

This type of thinking is so evident in areas of “alternative” health care and most people abandon any scientific approach to resolving key questions and go circular in their reasons with the statement “nobody knows’.

To help those lost in the fog of  this type of thinking, we need to take a firm grasp of reality and enumerate what we do know about the practice of Homoeopathy.

  • Homoeopathy is a principle. A Law of nature.
  • Homoeopathy the therapy, is ONE application of the law utilising the methodology of ascertaining knowledge of symptoms produced by substances, and applying those substances to match symptoms in the patients exhibited disease state.
  • It is a researched, accurate and tested method of applying the law of similars in a controlled and reproducible manner.
  • The matching of symptoms is done based on observable parameters and NOT on any quasi religious or spiritual lack of knowledge.

We are not owners of truth. We are observers of facts. We as practitioners of homoeopathy the therapy as defined, see the conditions and results of the medical application of minute doses on the patient, and can KNOW the progression of the curative response from all the work done prior to us, by all those thousands and thousands of similar conditions aided by symptom matching in a prescribed and logical manner. We have a confidence in THIS application of the medicines, based on sound rationale experimentation and conclusions.

We as practitioners of homeopathy the therapy, have spent many years examining the writings and continually putting the methodology up to the light and testing it against modern medical knowledge.

Also we have noted that ALL current methods of the application of homeopathic medicine, have been tested at one time or other by Hahnemann and rejected for sound logical and critiqued reasons.

Homeopathy the therapy as defined, has worked for a long time. Its a simple process that has been negated by those seeking fame and fortune and in introducing new methodology, it is attributed to them personally.  (strangely based on the criteria of mystical thinking in its application).

The writer stated:

Im honest enough to say there is a lot I dont know about the workings of homeopathy…….. its because I have spent 3 decades thinking very deeply abut the subject and still have a lot of unanswered questions.”

And we at the I.H.M. concur. You need to go read the Organon and Chronic Diseases thoroughly and study deeply.

None of here would have abandoned modern medical application of therapeutics (the drugs) unless we were convinced totally about homoeopathy the therapy, and then WORKED with it to get repeatable and reproducible results every time. We have no doubts about that, and we know that in following the protocol, it works BETTER than any other speculative method out there.

finally, in being ONE METHOD of applying the principle, it stands alone as being defined in its methodology. It cannot be accurately reproduced any other way.

Stuart Close

Homoeopathy works in perfect harmony with all necessary rational, non-medicinal and mechanical, therapeutic agents. Surgery, obstetrics, hygiene, dietetics, sanitary science, chemistry (so far as it is applied in the preparation of medicines and in ejecting and antidoting poisons) and psycho-therapy all find in homoeopathy their congenial and most powerful ally.

Homoeopathy is opposed in its constitution and principles to all
forms of treatment by direct or physiological medication, and to
physio-chemical treatment or treatment based upon chemical
theories.

Homoeopathy is opposed to the use; under ordinary conditions,
of drugs in physiological doses for mere palliative purposes, since
its primary object is always the cure or obliteration of disease and
complete restoration of health.

Homoeopathy is opposed to the methods of vaccine and serum
therapy, although it is claimed by many that these methods are
based upon the homoeopathic principle. It grants that this may be
true so far as the underlying principle is concerned, but opposes the
method of applying the principle as being a violation of sound,
natural principles of medication and productive of serious injury to
the living organism.

It has been proven experimentally and clinically that such
methods are unnecessary, and that the results claimed by their
advocates can be attained more safely, more rapidly and more
thoroughly by the administration of the homoeopathically indicated
medicines in sub-physiological doses, through the natural channels
of the body, than by introducing it forcibly by means of the
hypodermic needle or in any other way.

Homoeopathy is opposed to so-called “pathological prescribing”
and to “group treatment” of diseases, by which individual
peculiarities are ignored and patients are grouped or classed
according to their gross, pathological organic lesions and treated
alike. Homoeopathy deals with the individual, not the class. It treats
the patient, not a fictitious entity called the disease. Its prescription
or selection of medicines is based solely upon individual similarity
of symptoms, drug symptoms to disease symptoms, determined by
actual comparison in each case.

Homoeopathy is opposed to all forms of external, local or
topical drug treatment of the external, secondary symptoms of
disease, except in surgical cases. It directs its curative agents
through the natural channels of the body to the physiological
centres of vital action and reaction, which govern all functional
activities in the living organism in disease as well as in health.
Homoeopathy is opposed to polypharmacy. It depends for all its
results upon the dynamical action of single, pure, potentizated
medicines, prepared by a special mathematico-mechanical process
and administered in minimum doses.

In practice, homoeopathy bases the selection of the curative
remedy upon the totality of the symptoms of the individual
patient,. including a consideration of the ascertainable causes of
the disease. For the homoeopathic prescriber this constitutes the
disease. Speculation as to the inner, essential nature or working of
the drug or the disease does not enter into the process of selecting
the remedy. The prescription is not based upon the pathological
diagnosis, or the name of the disease, but solely upon the likeness
of the symptoms of the patient to the symptoms of some tested
drug, determined by actual comparison.

As the experimental work in constructing the homoeopathic
materia medica has been conducted with single medicines, and as
each medicine has its own definite and peculiar kind and sphere of
action, scientific accuracy, as well as the law of similars, requires
that the treatment of patients be conducted in the same manner.
Medicines, are never mixed or compounded in homoeopathic
practice but are given singly.

It has been proven experimentally that the sick organism is
peculiarly and even painfully sensitive to the action of the single,
similar medicine, and that curative effects are only obtained by
sub-physiological doses. Physiological doses, instead of removing
the symptoms of the disease, produce by their direct pathogenetic
action the characteristic symptom of the drug. If the drug be not a
similar the condition of the patient is complicated by the addition
of symptoms having no relation to the disease and no cure results.
If the drug be a similar the violent reaction of the organism to the
unnecessarily large dose increases suffering, exhausts the patient
and prolongs his disease, even if the eventually recovers.

The working principles of homoeopathy, therefore, may be
briefly stated as follows:
1. The totality of the symptoms of the patient is the basis of
medical treatment.
2. The use of single medicines, the symptoms and sphere of :action
of which have been predetermined by pure, controlled experiments
upon healthy persons.
3. The principle of symptom-similarity as the guide to the choice
of the remedy.
4. The minimum dose capable of producing a dynamic or
functional reaction.

Case taking thoughts.

A symptom, singular, is considered completed:

  • when the origin is discovered (if possible)
  • it progression,
  • its modifying factors of aggravation and amelioration,
  • its nature,
  • the type of disruption experienced by the patient,
  • the intensity of the pain,
  • how it impedes other functions.

In treating Acute disease states:

  • Always treat the complete symptom picture if they all came on together in a relatively short time, BUT take the presenting main symptoms uppermost as prescribing symptoms.

In treating Chronic cases:

  • Always treat the latest and present symptoms appearing as the most indicative for prescribing, even when sometimes they seem insignificant.
  • Older symptoms, present for a long time but not prominent, can be used as ‘confirmatory’ of the prescription based as above.
  • All symptoms experienced by the patient, if written down in order of appearance, can give a progression of the disease state, and usually with careful prescribing will reverse back layer by layer from latest to oldest symptoms appearing.

Do NOT:

  • Prescribe on the known symptoms of a disease.

ALWAYS:

  • Prescribe on the disease that the patient is exhibiting.

Homoeopathic treatment usually fails when:

  • A maintaining cause is allowed to remain in place.
  • This could be of a physical nature, or of a mental nature.
  • Examine carefully.

This is one of my observations:

  • If a treated disorder moves from the internal to the external to the skin, ie a rash, a weeping ailment, an ulcer, it is indicative that the immune response is trying to clear the problem.
  • Be careful and frugal in prescribing. Follow the symptoms carefully and prescribe only when it appears to be slowing or “stuck”.

The whole aim of prescribing any medicine is to give aid to a failing organism that lacks a curative response.

Once it is underway, symptoms that require the action of similia WILL become obvious to the keen eye of the prescriber. The body WILL throw them up in an attempt to self cure, but will sometimes lack the ability to do so. That is when we prescribe for that symptom or state, guided solely by them.

Anomolies between the Repertory and the Materia Medica

An Astute practicing homoeopath wrote me yesterday that she could only find aggravation from potatoes in 2 remedies in the Materia Medica. (Alum and Coloc)

So the question remains, why did Boenninghausen input the other 3 remedies into the T.P.B.?

The answer is that the work by Boenninghausen is a composition of original provings, discussions with Hahnemann and clinical experience.

The symptoms produced without a known causation would give a whole heap of remedies for consideration, Phos being among the top. However, in provings, in clinical experience, the action of potatoes on the economy give rise to a known effect, for which these 5 remedies appear to have an affinity for.

KENT, who took all of his rubrics from other repertories, has this list, of which ALUM features heavily in all of them. He also has other remedies featured in Boenninghausens work. If he had disagreed, he would have removed them.

However, in using the T.P.B. for a number of years, I have found the remedies suggested to be accurate to the extent that if one is STRONGLY suggested, and I cannot find the match in the M.M., I will still try it if all the other symptoms fit.

If Boenninghausen had not suffered a catastrophic loss of all his work in a fire, I am sure we would know why he included these medicines into the T.P.B.

Case review of potatoes

Okay:

Case dissection.

The previous evening had partaken of a bowl of new potatoes. Within an hour had begun to feel nauseous. A sense of pressure developed in the upper stomach area. The nausea was accompanied by a desire to burp to relieve the pressure but felt the burp itself would only come halfway up the throat leaving a burning sensation and no relief. Patient had much increased saliva and felt “deathly” and was really uncomfortable.  Said colic pains had started and desired to stool as well as burp but unable to.

  • Causation: Potatoes. 5 medicines.
  • Alum. Sepia. Verat. Coloc. Am-m.

From the immediate reaction, we can be fairly confident that the cause is Potatoes. We do not have to even do any more than read the 5 medicines. However, for the sake of the practitioners who do not know the medicines, we can go further.

  • Result: Saliva increased. This drops medicine choice to 3. Alum. Sepia and Veratrum.
  • Cannot burp: rises in throat, burns. This is an innefectual reflux.
  • This brings it to 2 medicines. Veratrum and Alum.

A this point,  it is easiest to read the medicines. However, from experience, a comment made about feeling “deathly” made me look at the feeling for future use.

When a patient feels deathly, its a mixture of being so ill that they want to be alone, are nauseated by everything, food drink, being disturbed etc. I have experienced this sensation as I am sure some of you have. So I took the rubric Nausea: disgust, loathing and added it to the repertorization.

Of course I had to justify through the Materia Medica. Chronic Diseases. S Hahnemann.

  • 442:Bitter eructations after eating potatoes, so that the shook for loathing, in the evening
  • 424:– After eating potatoes, stomach-ache, sick feeling, nausea, and then colicky pains.
  • 438:Frequent empty eructations
  • 443:– Rancid eructations, which leave behind a long continued burning in the throat
  • 469: Pressure in the stomach up to the throat, after eating potatoes, alleviated by eructations, in the morning

A read of all the nausea symptoms will confirm the ill feeling experienced. A medicine will produce a state, or symptoms, it will not always match precisely in every detail but it will show the experienced practitioner the key points to prescribe on.

I had to read VERY carefully to differentiate medicines. In the event, the patient was relieved in a couple of hours………

 

Acute Nausea

Female patient, age 52 Called into clinic with acute problem.

20130125-114718The previous evening had partaken of a bowl of new potatoes. Within an hour had begun to feel nauseous. A sense of pressure developed in the upper stomach area. The nausea was accompanied by a desire to burp to relieve the pressure but felt the burp itself would only come halfway up the throat leaving a burning sensation and no relief. Patient had much increased saliva and felt “deathly” and was really uncomfortable.  Said colic pains had started and desired to stool as well as burp but unable to.

Had taken Nux Vomica 30c during the night and it had done nothing.

Over to you.

Things to consider in case taking

20130125-114718Useful prescribing symptoms.

This is something that we look at in some depth during our seminars. But for a general overview, I will give a brief example.

Click to enlarge

A patient complains of a problem either on the skin, or related to the joints of the upper limbs, or the lower limbs, or even both. Given that the T.P.B. has 125 remedies only for consideration, we note that lower limbs has 122 remedies in the symptom and upper limbs has 123.

For prescribing purposes, this is less than helpful. It is NOT A PRESCRIBING SYMPTOM. The practitioners at the I.H.M. using the P&W T.P.B.are often asked why they dont use locations like this in repertorisations, the example above… The answer is that we do, but not for analysis of a case primarily.

We know that each of the symptoms above cover nearly EVERY remedy in the T.P.B. so logic dictates that we should be looking at more individual symptoms that are represented by fewer remedies in a picture of a disease.

So if a patient has thickening of the skin, we can be fairly sure that this one symptom when allied to the joints, will be covered in all rubrics.

And it only has 17 remedies in it. IMMEDIATELY if you are sure of the symptom, it has narrowed your search down to fewer remedies. So you can leave out the location of joint problem altogether. (You can check at the end of repertorising until you gain confidence in this method.)

Add this rubric to others of a defined and definite nature… within 2 or three rubrics you are looking at 1-3 remedies to consider for prescribing.

A Sunday change of subject

Case analysis for “another find the remedy case”

CASE NOTES

First, I want to thank all the practitioners and non practitioners for taking a chance on their prescriptions being ‘wrong’ on the site and in email. I would like to state once more that paper cases are the hardest to do and that if the patient had been in front of them, their observations might very well have been different (if they got the remedy wrong here). This is not about getting the remedy correct or not correct, this is about understanding a symptom and finding the correct rubric to identify it. This is about being specific and NOT using two rubrics to describe the same symptom from different angles… it does not work. This is about being BRAVE enough to trust in Hahnemann and your own observations to choose carefully the absolute symptom. For the record, it will take an average practitioner about one year to come to a working knowledge of the Therapeutic Pocket Book. A practitioner will go through MANY frustrations until finally they grasp the essentials and understanding of how to recombine a symptom and WHAT is a symptom.

the last chart on the page will show the repertorizing that I did for the case. When you understand how the Therapeutic pocket-book works, you can short cut like this for finding the CHARACTERISTIC of the disease and the remedy.

P&W Therapeutic Pocket Book used only.

So here we have a six year old child with Eczema.

We need to look at the symptoms presented very carefully to trace the disease Picture.

  • Tetters (Eczema)
  • Itching of Skin
  • Hard skin thickening.
  • Eczema in joints of arms and legs and neck.
  • Possible vaccination causation.

If we use this as our beginning state of the expression the disease in his economy.

You can click on the picture for increased clarity

As you can see, the basic expression of the disease is covered by 14 medicines. You will also note that I have checked which medicines have a causation of vaccinosis, and these are indicated in yellow on the names. I have no clue whether or not a vaccination is responsible, so at this point it is merely there for reference.

At this point, we note that the GENERAL picture of the disease has been traced. It is perfectly clear that this is a case of Eczema with defined symptoms. It is enough to indicate a group of medicines for further study, and that could take another couple of hours or so to do. However, we do not have anything that characterizes the picture of a single remedy that CLEARLY defines it above all other remedies and that is peculiar to one or few medicines. We are looking at the picture of disease that encompasses CONCOMITANT symptoms and also modalities of the expression of the disease that only this patient exhibits singularly and in totality of all his suffering.

It is my experience with expressed symptoms, that they HAVE to be present in the current case taking state, to be prescribed for. Now it was noted that the child had always had an issue with irritability and anger if he got hungry. His personality changed and he got angry and upset until he ate. although this symptom is of long standing, it is still one that exists and is representative of one part of his makeup, and is unusual enough to be remarked on because of the change in him.

So we look at the case again, and note the child is aggravated after playing,getting warm and perspiring.So when we combine all the symptoms into an individual picture, we get:We can see Rhus Tox does not have an aggravation from becoming hot or from perspiration. We also note that the disposition is not vexed or angry. The modalities determined the case for starting with SEPIA. 0/1 potency one dose a day.

I note from the case that we DID give Rhus Tox several weeks after the Sepia for a couple of doses, and that about a year later the father gave mercurius for something else. The boy has remained skin clear and happy for over 2 years.

Was the vaccination the cause? I dont know.

(As mentioned above, this is the repertorization that I took for the case)

 

Aph 153 and characteristics.

§ 153 Fifth Edition
“In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of the natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure. The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug.”

Characteristic means:

  • a feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify them.
  • typical of a particular person, place, or thing,
  • a special quality or trait that makes a person, thing, or group different from others

Peculiar means:

  • late Middle English (in the sense ‘particular’): from Latin peculiaris ‘of private property’, from peculium ‘property’, from pecu ‘cattle’ (cattle being private property). The sense ‘strange’ dates from the early 17th century.
  • Belonging exclusively to: some languages are peculiar to one region.

We can see here, that the words used by Hahnemann in German, were translated CAREFULLY to convey the the full and true meaning of what needs to be looked for in Disease and Medicine.

Let me give you an example of characteristic and peculiar from the art world.

                                                                       

The three snippets from paintings above, are each peculiar to the individual artist. The Colours, the Texture, the Design, the Subject, the Style and the Feel. A person viewing these small portions of the fuller paintings, would need to be familiar with the artists work, perhaps with knowledge of several of his paintings, his peculiar use of light and brush strokes, his subject matter of interest, to be able to IMMEDIATELY recognise with certainty which artist painted the full picture.

So too with disease and medicines. A person familiar with the provings, will know of the characteristics of individual medicines.. He will know by its sphere of action, by its peculiar affinity to certain organs or types of action on the economy what medicines will produce certain symptoms ALWAYS in a peculiar manner to that drug, even if he has NEVER seen it in a location as is displayed before him in a case of disease. He will know the medicine by its feel, by its type of action and by its peculiar and characteristic expression, so much so that he will recognise it immediately  just like a snippet of a painting on canvas, when he sees it.

As a musician, I  usually know which artist has written a song on its opening notes by the Style, arrangement, feel and collection of notes even if I HAVE NEVER HEARD THE TUNE BEFORE. It is peculiar to the song writer.

We should know our medicines the same way.