Monthly Archives: June 2015

The Constitution from the standpoint of Hahnemann

Translated from the Spanish.

The original Post in Spanish: https://pandwespanol.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/la-constitucion-desde-la-optica-de-hahnemann/

 

In the aphorism 5 , Hahnemann tells us that should be taken into consideration everything that can be ascertained from the physical constitution of the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and intellectual, occupation, lifestyle and habits, relationships social and domestic, age, sexual functioning, etc . “ (§ 5, Org VI)

While in the aphorism 6 tells us:

“The void of prejudices and well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can not be confirmed by experience, observer to each individual case of disease noted only -By exercised its power to the maximum penetration – the changes in health your body and mind(morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; ie only he warns deviations based on the previous state of health leading to the now diseased individual,which are felt by the patient, confirmed by those who live with him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its entirety or whether, taken together, constitute the real picture and the only conceivable disease. “

Then we have two polarizations of thought that lead to the ends when both paragraphs are not interpreted as a whole and according to other minor writings.For one allopathic school that is responsible for treating the disease and secondly the spiritualist school sobrepsicologizada James Kent (and derived via Sankaran and Vithoukas), in which the object of treatment is the person, as Hippocrates said through its maxim ” no diseases but sick . ” However, homeopathic school, from the Hahnemannian methodology is neither one side nor the other, but rather in an intermediate point of balance. The latter is responsible for dealing with the disease in the person, according to the ingenious modification of the maximum Hippocratic made ​​by Lain Entralgo saying ” no diseases but sick

Thus, from a genuine homeopathic approach, the physician may have 20 cases with the same diagnosis of disease, but symptomatically manifested differently by each of those 20 people. Therefore, Hahnemann advises us to consider all the factors mentioned in aphorism 5, to determine what has changed in the patient, based on his previous health status and thus be able to individualize each case when it has been manifested disease (§ 6).

In relation to these two aphorisms in the Organon, Boenninghausen shown their understanding and consistency with Dr. Hahnemann when his younger written “A Contribution to Concerning the Characteristic Value of Symptoms Judgment“indicates that knowing the personality and body constitution patient are necessary, but only for them to be considered as a benchmark to detecteverything that differs from that for the disease and that deserves special attention .

In the same aphorism 5, Hahnemann tells us that it is helpful in curing doctor “everything that relates to the exciting cause of the acute disease … and also the most important points in the history of chronic disease, that put you in a position to discover the root cause , which is generally due to a chronic miasma “and may well correlate with the last sentence of aphorism 72 that says”disease, called chronic, are caused by a chronic miasma .

So far, we assume that you have a clear conception of what is a miasma to Hahnemann . Now, should differentiate the cause exciting or exciter causecritical .

The exciting causes , in the aphorism 73 tells us that these can be ” excesses in food or deficiency, severe physical impressions, chills, hot flashes, dissipation, effort, etc., or physical irritations, mental emotions, and the like “.

On the other hand it says that the miasma (psora) is ” the most common underlying cause of chronic diseases “(§ 206 Org VI), which in turn indicates that root cause, Hahnemann refers to the miasma and the exciting causes are those that trigger the development of symptoms of acute illness or chronic disease is dormant. This should leave no doubt that in chronic diseases, the person must first have been infected with the root cause for an exciting cause can then “wake up” symptoms; therefore, the physical constitution, character, preferences and physical features of the patient are not the root cause of chronic disease, nor are symptoms themselves, nor predispose to acquire in the first instance.

Hahnemann advises us to take into account other factors that may be perpetuating exposure to possible miasma or both are hindering aggravating or canceling our prescription likewise advise other general measures.

  • 208 Org. SAW

“They must take into consideration the patient’s age, your lifestyle and your diet, your occupation, your home environment, social relationships and so on, to determine if these things have contributed to increasing their disease, or to what extent have helped or hindered treatment. Similarly should take care of their mood and mind, to know if they have any obstacles to treatment, or need to be addressed, stimulated or modified. “

Susceptibility

Of no less importance is necessary to take into account the susceptibility in the patient according to Hahnemann in the case of acute diseases (epidemic) ” only have a few people at a time§73 , whereas in chronic disease thesusceptibilityto be affected by the miasma of itch is in almost all humans, whatever the circumstances , which does not happen with the other two … No other chronic miasma miasma infects as many people as surely and easily as pruritus … is the most contagious. “ (Par 71, 72 EC)

Of the Constitution:

During his speech, in chronic diseases, Hahnemann quoted in paragraph 46 the work of Ludwig Christian Juncker, who made ​​a series of observations concerning symptoms after the suppression of itching that patients with certain constitutions tended to deploy, or rather, symptoms that were dependent on the physical constitution and different temperaments. For example, the suppression of pruritus was followed in ” obese people by stifling coughs and mucous consumption

This should not be confused, because the context of the quote clearly refers to a time that has already made ​​the process of contagion by the miasmainfecting with subsequent reaction of the miasmatic disease acquired , in this case the Psora and for Hahnemann was a way to find that certain symptoms that he had observed belonged to the Psora disease .

We can transpolar these observations concerning symptoms depending on the constitution, to which for example now we understand in conventional medicine as a predisposing factor (from the cause exciter ) of diabetes in a patient who has become obese or overweight, considering the the possible pathogenesis of autoimmune process implicitly associated with the disease and, according to various sources, is produced by viruses, chemical factor, among others, that in the case of chronic disease model would be the root cause . The hereditary in this model Hahnemannian not have a definition confined to what we understand today as such , nor is it implicit in the origin of chronic disease according to design theory by the author himself. (See: According to Hahnemann What is a miasma? )

Given this, then your doctor may order a proper diet, exercise routine, stress management, as well as educating the patient about the full care of your body and warning signs.

Chronic diseases:

95. ” The awakening of internal psora , which so far has been dormant, latent and, so to speak, contained by a good body composition and favorable external circumstances , and its forthcoming violent eruption under the guise of aches and More serious diseases, are foretold by increased symptoms that are given below and by many other signs and disturbances. These are varied, conforming to the different body constitutions , the hereditary disposition ( congenital ), errors in education and habits, the way of life and diet, to the various activities, which occupies the mind, morality and so on. “

96 .- “It is then when the internal disease of itching begins to develop secondary overt disease , the symptoms listed below ‘mentioned, who have observed and removed entirely from the medical records of cases that I I have tried it successfully and, with no doubt, originated in a contagion of itching and were not complicated with syphilis or with psychosis. “

  • 81 Organon VI

“The fact that this extremely ancient infecting agent has gradually gone through many millions of human bodies in some hundreds of generations, reaching an incredible development, makes it conceivable in a way as you can now display such innumerable morbid forms in the human family, particularly when we consider that number of circumstances 131 contributes to the production of this variety of chronic diseases (secondary symptoms of psora), plus the indescribable diversity of men about their congenital physique ; so that should not be surprising if such a variety of harmful influences at work internally or externally, and sometimes continually on such a variety of blended agencies psoric miasma, produce an endless variety of defects, injuries, disorders and suffering which so far had been treated in the works old pathology February 1 low number of special names, as diseases of an independent character right. “

1 Some of these causes exert modifying influence on the transformation of psora in chronic disease , sometimes clearly depend on the climate and the unique physical character of the place that is inhabited, sometimes the variety of physical and mental education Youth, which may have been neglected, delayed or carried excesses or abuse in business, or living conditions, on the issue of diet and regimen, passions, behavior, habits and customs of various kinds “

In this regard, we must emphasize once again that the constitution ( physical ) and other factors to investigate in aphorism 5 are ” useful to the doctor to help curebut not to select the remedy for the simple reason that OR a person’s height, color of skin or eyes, the shape of his head or his eyes, his fingerprints, his personality preferences or wrongly understood as constitution, can be considered as symptoms of disease and neither can be altered or produced by a remedy in a person.

With the investigation of all these personal aspects of the patient if the doctor finds some cause exciting or occasional ( ocasionalis ) that trigger or maintain the disease, then you can proceed to intervene or make other recommendationsNP  to remove, without forgetting that the miasma as the cause critical can also be intangible nature, and that the goal of treatment is to eliminate, as far as possible, the susceptibility to infection miasma and thus resolve the chronicityof the disease-reaction can be confirmed by then cured.

NP.-aphorism Footnote 7

Needless to say that every intelligent physician separates the existing occasional cause, with usually cease spontaneously indisposition. So, away from the room very fragrant flowers , which tend to cause syncope and hysterical sufferings; extracted from the cornea the foreign body that causes inflammation of the eye, loosened the bandages too tight in an injured limb, threatening gangrene, to apply best; discovers and binds the wound bleeding artery to determine syncope, tries, by vomiting, the expulsion of belladonna berries , etc. etc, that had ingested; extracted foreign bodies that may have been introduced into the holes of the body (nose, throat, ears, urethra, rectum, vagina); grinds bladder stones ;imperforate anus opens newborn , etc.

In synergy with the aphorisms 5 and 6, the teacher is clear in stating that there are no diseases exciting to remove identifiable cause ” can not perceive anything but the symptoms , must … be only them the means by which the disease calls and it indicates the appropriate remedy to relieve … “( § 7 ) “… antipsoric or not, but to save the greater symptomatic similarity …” (§209)

Advertisements
Video

The falsifying of Health Figures.

In depth case analysis-Really?

If you look on the internet, right now, there are a plethora of the modern guru’s promoting seminars for unraveling the mysteries of case analysis. This implies that there are secrets and difficulties in the process. Considering that the ‘secrets’ are freely available, along with the methodology in the Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann. For those that dont know, Hahnemann was the researcher that compiles the do’s and don’ts of the practice of Homoeopathic medicine.

He was not a mean man. He gave away freely the information regarding the practice. He would teach interested doctors the methodology, and lectured extensively on the matter. History shows that then as now, People did not listen.

Kent did not listen. Hering did not listen. The majority of the body of people claiming to practice homoeopathy today did not listen and refuse to listen now. Instead they prefer to have their ears tickled by ‘modern methods’ which go against the principles of practice by using personalities, sensations and elements to ‘prescribe’ a medicine that fits the patients disease.

You do need to be shown some things. You do need to be guided in your study of the Organon by someone not influenced by the Swedenborgian religious view of Kent. You do need to have the real Hahnemannian model of case taking explained  without a filter placed over it. You do need to practice the method on patients to see the benefits.

You also need to use a guide to the Materia Medica that is accurate and has the approval of Hahnemann. You do need to know what a prescribing symptom is, and how to combine it with other prescribing symptoms to form a picture of the remedy.

You do need to know what is fact and what is interpretation.

The modern homoeopath is at a tremendous disadvantage in the therapy. He or she has never been taught real homoeopathy, and has learned to despise it by taking up the false methodologies. Most worship Hahnemann and have a view of the therapy as being part of the spiritual life of humans. How much more wrong can a person be?

It is not a spiritual involvement. It is a medical practice. The success or failure of a treatment has nothing to do with religion or earth awareness or intent. Its a medical practice.

If a statement by a guru is in opposition to a statement by Hahnemann, or collectively leads toward a spiritual path, or a path that promotes personality prescribing, or a prescription based on a central delusion or sensation, or biased toward an element-then you have been misled. Hahnemann treated disease as expressed in ALTERED symptoms both mental and physical in the patient. It is not buried deep or require mental gymnastics to formulate a theory why it happened.

Go back to the beginning and read Hahnemann again.

Coming soon-The Book.

P&W will soon be releasing the English Book version of the SYNOPSIS Therapeutic Pocket Book Repertory.

The Institute has received a lot of requests for a book repertory. We have held off for the longest time due to the work involved in doing this project. Finally, however, we could not find a reasonable excuse and we got down to the task.

The P&W rendition of the 1846 Therapeutic Pocket Book is an updated and original work that corrected  mistakes found in the Allens translation. By utilizing 15 Dictionaries and medical texts of the time, and by careful analysis of the German text, (with the aid of German nationals and speakers),  we made a comprehensive and accurate tool to be used by homoeopathic physicians.

I.H.M. staff members  Ed and Marcia Nunnery have spent hundreds of hours checking and resetting the text to fit into an 8 x 11-inch book format. The information is identical to the computer version. Each rubric is numbered the same as the number in the computer program to facilitate easy finding. We have retained the Allens layout concept but have changed the chapters in the book to make it easier to find.  The book will be available in a high-quality paperback version and we are working on a hardback version.

Ed and Marcia presented the concept of a slightly larger text font for those of us visually challenged, and in using the book, I was happy to find that even without wearing glasses, I could make out the rubrics and remedies.

Research has shown that physically reading a book helps with being able to retain the information easier than on a computer screen. Ed commented to me that during the checking of remedies in the compilation, he actually began to see the linking in certain remedies to certain symptoms and understand the scope of its action. He also pointed out that he was surprised at the effects of some remedies on conditions that the remedy in question would never have been thought of for.

P&W believe that the rationale behind Boenninghasens choice of remedy placement in chapters was for sound logical reasons and  therefore we did not  alter rubric placement out of the chapters they were placed in. For this reason, we are able to include the full Concordances that Boenninghausen incorporated in his original work.

We will announce the price in due course and where to order the book from.

Kent, the Constitutional Remedy, Aphorisms 5 and 6

Here is another viewpoint as to why Aphorism 5 is misunderstood.

Authored by Vera Resnick on https://pandwisrael.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/kent-the-constitutional-remedy-aphorisms-5-and-6/

Kent. James Tyler


So what should it be – Aphorism 5 or Aphorism 6? Let’s look at them… (text taken from 6th edition)

Aphorism 5:

Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease, as also the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, to enable him to discover its fundamental cause, which is generally due to a chronic miasm. In these investigations, the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration.

Aphorism 6:

The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.

So – which one is it? If the information described in Aphorism 5 is what is needed to make an accurate homoeopathic prescription, we can understand the Kentian-style intake, lasting hours and sometimes even days. We can also understand how Kent – with a little push from Swedenborg, ok, a hefty shove – came to the concept of the constitutional remedy. A remedy which encompasses the patient’s entire soul and psyche, in this life and – depending on your beliefs – in all those that came before and will come after…

Since Kent’s time, homeopaths have worshipped at the altar of the Constitutional Remedy, the simple substance – a Swedenborgian, not Hahnemannian concept – and this is what most non-homoeopaths and homoeopaths alike believe Classical Homoeopathy to be.

But then what do we do about Aphorism 6? This Aphorism and its instructions have been swept under the constitutional carpets of so-called Classical Homoeopathy for so long that the simple clarity of focus and objective has been lost to many.

Hahnemann’s language in Aphorism 6 is very clear. “Take note of nothing but the changes in the health of the body and the mind”. How on earth is it possible to ignore that? But it is ignored.

The thing is – this is not an “either/or” situation. Both Aphorisms are essential, but they serve different purposes. We cannot take what has changed (Aphorism 6), if we don’t know what was before (Aphorism 5). We cannot assess those changes and prioritize them if we don’t know whether there is an exciting cause, a maintaining cause, a miasmatic origin (or something that is harming the patient’s health and can be removed – see Aphorism 4) – if we don’t do the work set out in Aphorism 5.

But the central focus, the torch that has to guide us through the often labyrinthine nature of a complex case has to be Aphorism 6. So many patients today are subjected to never-ending sessions where they are asked to disclose their most intimate thoughts, dreams and fantasies, their sexual urges, their emotional relationships past present and future, their failed expectations and unexpected successes. The process is usually emotionally draining, hugely time-consuming, potentially harmful in terms of the patient-practitioner relationship, and without the context set out in Aphorism 6, of no use whatsoever and potentially hinders us from finding the best homoeopathic prescription for the patient.

Aphorism 5 from Hahnemanns point of view.

Marc Van Wijk  wrote: June 23, 2015 at 8:52 pm.
But even Hahnemann told us to take personal characteristics into account when searching for the right remedy:

Aphorism five.

Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease, as also the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, to enable him to discover its fundamental cause, which is generally due to a chronic miasm. In these investigations, the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration.

It is a very important aphorism from Hahnemann’s point of view. From a clinical perspective, the  physician should also possess the knowledge of how to distinguish an acute disease from a chronic one especially with regard to the most probable exciting cause of the former and the fundamental cause to be inferred from the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease of the latter. aphorism five was introduced in the fourth edition of the organon and  it is to be read along with aphorism  72 of that edition.

The last sentence of aphorism five implies a distinctive approach to the study of disease conditions. The orthodox school attempts to study the disease, that the patient has, whereas the homeopathic school attempts to study the patient that has the disease. Diagnosis of the disease for example, disease determination is the aim of the former schools whereas disease individualisation and diagnosis of the person are the extra twofold aims of the latter school. This constitutional diagnosis (including actual constitutional diagnosis, developmental constitutional diagnosis and environmental constitutional diagnosis) looms large in the homeopathic system of treatment. An illustration will make the point clear.

One man is suffering from cough, fever, pain in the chest et cetera, we have to diagnose the disease first i.e. whether it is a case of bronchitis, pneumonia, broncho-pneumonia, influenza or tuberculosis et cetera. This is disease determination or diagnosis. Next we have to find out the individualising features of a particular disease e.g. the patient is suffering from acute lobar pneumonia.

In the homeopathic treatment we have to find out in what ways this particular pneumonia patient differs from other pneumonia patients.

This is what is called disease individualisation. Suppose the patient gives a history of recurrent attacks of acute lobar pneumonia. Here we have to determine the type of the person who is getting these recurrent attacks, i.e. what are the constitutional peculiarities of the person, independent of his actual disease. This is what is known as diagnosis of the person. This is the distinctive work of the homeopathic school. So Hahnemann wants to take into consideration the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient especially when the disease is chronic his moral and intellectual character is occupation, his mode of living, and habits, his social and domestic relations his age sexual functions et cetera.

We do not prescribe on these constitutional peculiarities, we use them to differentiate as per aphorism 6.

NEW JAMA STUDY CONFIRMS NURSE WHISTLEBLOWING: ROUTINE HOSPITAL VACCINE DAMAGE HAPPENING TO INFANTS

Picture

It was not long ago that headlines were made by Michelle Rowton of Nurses Against Mandatory Vaccines during a live interview with David Knight of infowars.com. The nurse turned whistleblower spoke of the callous, daily operating procedure she witnessed happening in the hospital she worked at. Her admissions were yet another log on a fire lit long ago burning for people’s right to have medical freedom and choice. In that viral interview, Rowton went on record to state:

I think what a lot of people don’t realize in a closed space like NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit) is that they’ve decided that we need to vaccinate these babies on-time. Two months after they’re born…bam, there it goes. This baby could be four months early and still supposed to be inside their mother, weighting three or four pounds and getting the same amount of vaccines as a 200 pound man.

Rowton then went further to break bombshell news at the time by saying:

I’ve sat in a room with our on-call staff of physicians and practitioners (when they say) “Oh wow, this is so embarrassing this 25 weeker never actually required a breathing tube and going on the vent after he was born, he was so strong. But we gave him his two month vaccinations and he got intubated last night ha ha, oops how embarrassing. The step-down units are calling the NICU’s and saying “hey we’re going to go ahead and give these four babies their two month shots today, make sure you have beds ready because we all know they’re going to have increased breathing difficulties, feeding and digestion difficulties, apnea, and bradycardia. This is what goes on”

It appears the dominos are continuing to fall in favor of common sense, informed consent and medical ethics. New research from the JAMA Pediatrics journal titled Adverse Events After Routine Immunization of Extremely Low-Birth-Weight Infants now confirms essential 100 percent of Rowton’s whistleblowing statements which, just a month ago, seemed almost surreal. Drug companies, politicians and a misguided medical community are now faced with the uncomfortable position of withdrawing their PR campaigns and daily operating procedures in favor of hard data and daily evidence. Humanity has reached the point where denying reality in the face of such evidence borders on insanity and high ignorance. It appears to be clear that when a medical community, its regulations and the health of a people are driven by profits, what is revealed equates to nothing more than a slippery slope towards systemic damage and destruction.

When highly profitable agendas are in play, listening to public demand typically isn’t the strong suit of politicians. As people take back their medical freedom in state houses across the United States, an integrity-strained governmental body is testing the extreme realms of political misrepresentation. It makes no difference now if the original roots attempting to remove medical freedom and choice were laid by ignorance, corruption, financial reward or a combination of all three. Authors of forced vaccination bills and doctors quoting outdated information are laughably seen for what they are. The only control left for them are social media censorship and paid astroturfing firms. Opposition is now trying desperately to keep up with the daily mass awakening towards free medical and health choice in opposition to pharmaceutical influenced control. Senate and Congress members are now being made personally liable for their bills and votes after being served the Official Complaint of Research Fraud papers/report prepared by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Dr. Brian Hooker Ph. D. and James Moody. Lawsuits are lined up ready to commence at the first sign of vaccine-induced damage from their bills. Doctors and nurses are also still on the chopping block as their perceived insulation and useful ignorance is being removed by whistleblowers admissions and mounting scientific evidence. The Nuremberg codes wait patiently to be weirded once again on a medical community that has strayed from their ideals, code of ethics and common sense.

References:
Official Complaint of Research Fraud 
New JAMA Pediatrics Study 

The second mistake made in prescribing.

han2Although it might seem a silly thing to say, Most prescribers dont take a case relating to the disease.

For whatever reasons, the modern homoeopath continue the delusion of treating the person and not the disease. WE DO NOT TREAT THE PERSON, we treat the DISEASE AS EXPRESSED THROUGH ALTERED SYMPTOMS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. as a previous article stated, this is the complete picture of the DISEASE, and not the person.

This negates EVERY personal preference or personality trait of the person if it is unaltered or unchanged in any way prior to or during the disease state we are looking at. Hahemann in his instructions for taking a case made this abundantly clear.

Although any homoeopath can fail in making a correct prescription, would it not be much better to eliminate incorrect case taking from the checklist for sorting out the problem from the outset?  Better to relook at the SX and adjust accordingly depending on the patients reaction to a remedy that did not work as expected, than to have a lot of meaningless and useless symptoms that bear no relationship to the case of disease being treated.

There are many homoeopaths who spend literally 8-16 hours taking a ‘case’. Unbelievable. It is not about a personality profile, or a legend of likes and dislikes and every event that happened in the patients life. It is about having a factual picture of the presenting sx of the disease in front of you so that a match can be made for a substance that produces the same SX of the disease state. That is also why the theory of one remedy cures in a disease is incorrect. This is based on KENTS religious beliefs and not Hahnemanns research. Remedies produce SX. When the SX change, so does the remedy.

Disease is usually a progression of events toward the present state. Each stage of the disease is usually of a different state. Depending on where we intervene, it will be a different remedy picture. Take Croup for example. If we are in the beginning stages of interventions, we will probably give ACONITE for the fevers and inflammation present. As that stage is ‘altered’ we move towards Spongia for the Croup SX of the cough and ancilliary effects of the disease. If the SX presented are not quite the Croupy cough, we may well give Hepar Sulph and then Spongia, and even alternate these remedies as the SX of the disease alternate. So that is 3 remedies give to cure one disease at each stage.  Giving Hepar or Spongia when the patient requires Aconite will do nothing. The SX do not match the prescription. But in ALL cases, the ALTERED DISEASE STATE is the only indicator for a prescription. Not the personality or the patients preferences-unless ALTERED during the disease state.

Any practitioner who has based his or her practice on Kentian philosophy is going to be wrong in understanding Hahnemanns directions. Thats just the way it is. That goes for the teachers too.

If you have a desire to be a better physician, then the onus is on you to practice Hahnemannian homoeopathy. Just because KENT said and other say that he was a devoted follower of Hahnemanns medical practice…… does not make it so.

 

 

 

The main mistake made in Prescribing.

We get asked a lot regarding reasons why a ‘well indicated’ remedy did not work. The answer is simple. In the main, it is an incorrect prescription. A prescription is only as good as your case taking, your knowledge of Materia Medica, of pathology and the repertory you use to get suggestions for remedy examination.

Let us look at at Repertories first. Kent is misleading. It is the amalgamation of many works that have incorrect insertions and worse than that, the methodologies of each work has been lost or misplaced in the KENT format.

Materia Medica. In the main, it is best to stick to Hahnemanns Materia Medica Pura and Chronic diseases proving notes. Anyone using modern provings are at the mercy of the author and his understanding (or lack of) of the methodology and protocol involved in testing a medicine. Avoid Materia Medica which promote personalities of remedies. This is totally incorrect and misleading.

Knowledge of pathology. Useful for prognosis of clinical symptoms and for eliciting common symptoms of disease.

Case taking. A practitioner will fail every time if prescribing for anything else other than the disease symptoms expressed in the patient. Personality, preferences and emotions  are all to be dismissed in case taking except where the disease process has altered expression from the previous state.

The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.

Following this REQUIREMENT correctly, and matching only particular disease symptoms with particular remedy provings, will negate giving a medicine based on generalisations. “oh he is a fat and lethargic and sweaty baby” so I gave Calc” will not do. Have you matched the particular symptoms the baby is suffering from to a remedy? Why not?

“I gave Natrum Muriaticum because the patient wanted to be by the seaside.” So what? Are any particular symptoms alleviated or removed or cured by being at the seaside? Is this desire relevant to the symptoms of disease present or is it just a preference of the individual?

This is a medical practice based on sound and scientific principles. Many practitioners think its a quasi spiritual experience. It is not. A brief look (without any overlay or filter of a modern practitioners influence of your understanding, including KENT) of the Organon of medicine, the HANDBOOK and INSTRUCTION manual for the practice and application of homoeopathy will show EXACTLY how to use the application of medicines for success.

CHARLESTON SHOOTER WAS ON DRUG LINKED TO VIOLENT OUTBURST

CHARLESTON SHOOTER WAS ON DRUG LINKED TO VIOLENT OUTBURSTS Dylann Storm Roof was taking habit-forming drug suboxone   Charleston Shooter Was on Drug Linked to Violent Outbursts by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | JUNE 18, 2015

Charleston shooter Dylann Storm Roof was reportedly taking a drug that has been linked with sudden outbursts of violence, fitting the pattern of innumerable other mass shooters who were on or had recently come off pharmaceutical drugs linked to aggression. According to a CBS News report, earlier this year when cops searched Roof after he was acting suspiciously inside a Bath and Body Works store, they found “orange strips” that Roof told officers was suboxone, a narcotic that is used to treat opiate addiction. Suboxone is a habit-forming drug that has been connected with sudden outbursts of aggression. A user on the MD Junction website relates how her husband “became violent, smashing things and threatening me,” after just a few days of coming off suboxone. Another poster on the Drugs.com website tells the story of how his personality completely changed as a result of taking suboxone. The individual relates how he became “nasty” and “violent” just weeks into taking the drug, adding that he would “snap” and be mean to people for no reason. Another poster reveals how his son-in-law “completely changed on suboxone,” and that the drug sent him into “self-destruct mode.” A user named ‘Jhalloway’ also tells the story of how her husband’s addiction to suboxone was “ruining our life.” A poster on a separate forum writes about how he became “horribly aggressive” towards his partner after taking 8mg of suboxone. A website devoted to horror stories about the drug called SubSux.com also features a post by a woman whose husband obtained a gun and began violently beating his 15-year-old son after taking suboxone. According to a Courier-Journal report, suboxone “is increasingly being abused, sold on the streets and inappropriately prescribed” by doctors. For some users, it is even more addictive than the drugs it’s supposed to help them quit. As we previously highlighted, virtually every major mass shooter was taking some form of SSRI or other pharmaceutical drug at the time of their attack, including Columbine killer Eric Harris, ‘Batman’ shooter James Holmes and Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza. As the website SSRI Stories profusely documents, there are literally hundreds of examples of mass shootings, murders and other violent episodes that have been committed by individuals on psychiatric drugs over the past three decades. Pharmaceutical giants who produce drugs like Zoloft, Prozac and Paxil spend around $2.4 billion dollars a year on direct-to-consumer television advertising every year. By running negative stories about prescription drugs, networks risk losing tens of millions of dollars in ad revenue, which is undoubtedly one of the primary reasons why the connection is habitually downplayed or ignored entirely.