Monthly Archives: July 2015

Naturopathic doctors gaining new powers

Naturopathic doctors in Ontario and British Columbia are celebrating legislative gains that will allow them to prescribe drugs as well as natural products, and naturopaths in Manitoba and Alberta may soon be joining the party.

In Ontario, the provincial Standing Committee on Social Policy voted in October to approve Bill 179, which will amend the Naturopathy Act to allow qualified naturopaths to dispense, compound or sell drugs listed in accompanying regulations. Although the bill requires third reading and passage by the legislature, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care supports it and, given the Liberal majority, it is expected to pass.

The regulations that will determine which drugs naturopaths will be allowed to prescribe must still be hammered out — a process that could take up to three years. Although naturopathic doctors in Ontario believe they will eventually be able to prescribe basic primary care drugs and crash-cart medications, as in British Columbia, they also expect some lobbying against that power from organizations representing medical doctors.

“We feel very positive about the changes, the new regulations in British Columbia and what’s being proposed in Ontario,” says Shawn O’Reilly, executive director and director of government relations for the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors. “What we’re seeing is that shared scope of practice legislation is being tabled and approved across the country, and naturopathic doctors are being included in that legislation.”

The changes are in the best interests of patients and will foster comanagement with medical doctors and others, she adds.

Not everyone appears warm to the notion of expanding naturopath prescribing rights beyond natural health products, though.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is 1820e29f1.jpg

Will that be an herb? Or a drug? That prescriptive option will soon be available to many naturopathic doctors in Canada.

“The intent is just to allow them to do what they are already doing with the natural health products,” says David Jensen, a spokesman for the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Whether pharmaceuticals are added to the list of products naturopaths will be permitted to prescribe, compound and dispense “will need to be seen as it is spelled out in the regulations,” he says.

In a statement, Dr. Suzanne Strasberg, president of the Ontario Medical Association, raised concerns about the proposed expansion of the scope of practice for naturopaths. “We believe that the use of pharmaceuticals or synthetic drugs is completely outside naturopathy’s educational framework and scope of practice,” she stated.

In British Columbia, the government last April passed legislation allowing naturopathic practitioners to prescribe Schedule I medications, which include basic primary care drugs such as antibiotics. In addition, qualified naturopaths will be able to prescribe hormones, botanicals, high-dose vitamins, amino acids and other natural substances they have traditionally used in their practices, but which are increasingly coming under federal control and scheduling limitations. In many provinces such as BC, only medical doctors, dentists and veterinarians could previously prescribe substances such as digitalis and other botanicals and hormones that naturopaths normally used.

Under BC’s legislation and accompanying regulations, naturopaths will not prescribe certain restricted classes of medications, such as antipsychotics and chemotherapy drugs. The regulatory board that governs naturopathic doctors is now finalizing the standards and list of substances that naturopaths will be allowed to prescribe.

But they will first have to meet educational requirements and pass a qualifying examination, says Christoff Kind, president of the British Columbia Naturopathic Association. “The whole thing really is just based on providing for a shared scope of practice model here in BC, which I think is coming across the country,” he says. “Professions that have the training should be allowed to practise to their level of education and expertise.”

The changes will mean that if a naturopath has a patient with acute pneumonia, for example, he will be able to prescribe an appropriate antibiotic instead of sending the patient to their family doctor, Kind says. “It will allow for more streamlined health care.”

Meanwhile, Manitoba has just approved umbrella legislation regulating health care professions that is similar to that of BC. Naturopaths are expected to be included “as part of the second wave moved under that legislation,” O’Reilly says. Alberta has done the same and regulations have been drafted there but not yet finalized.

In the United States, 11 of 16 jurisdictions that regulate naturopathic medicine have awarded naturopathic doctors prescribing authority. Although the pharmaceutical formulary varies in different states, it is extremely broad in Hawaii, California and Washington. In Arizona and Oregon, naturopaths are allowed to prescribe most pharmaceuticals except some therapeutics and narcotics. In Utah, they may prescribe and dispense all non-controlled drugs, while in Maine, they must first complete a one-year collaborative relationship with a medical doctor.

One size medicines and named diseases

one size fits none...

one size fits who?

One size doesn’t fit all…

There have been many studies of measles. Of mumps. Of pneumonia. Of different forms of cancers. Of Alzheimers.

However, when people are sick, there are at least two major players (if we leave out the children, grandchildren, in-laws and extended family/tribe/hamula/mishpocha…). There’s the disease, and then there’s… the patient. The host, if you will.

Bacteria frequently take up residence in all kinds of environments (gut, respiratory tract, urinary tract etc.) belonging to all kinds of people. The pathology of the disease – if a disease even arises – and the outcome does not as a rule depend only on the disease, except perhaps in major epidemics and even then there are questions. The pathology and outcome for the most part, depends on the host.

So here’s the problem. If you see illness as something separate from the human being who’s playing host, you define it, observe it, examine its different manifestations – you’re treating the disease almost as if it’s something outside the body. Treatment is not being individualized to fit the human being who’s hosting this particular bacterial/viral/fungal party. This gives rise to the development of medicines which are given to all individuals suffering from a particular disease, and predictably, not everyone responds to the medication. Not everyone gets better. Because one size doesn’t fit all.

Conventional medicine doesn’t have the medicines that would relate to an individualized disease state, as it doesn’t have the concepts required to treat in this way. The emotions, for example, play no part in a prescription of anti-biotics, anti-histamines, etc. But some people get sick as a result of an emotional trigger, some develop emotional changes alongside physical symptoms, and these changed emotion states are part of the disease picture. There are children who get a bad cold with runny nose, and who become very clingy and needy when they’re usually independent. Then there are children who, on becoming sick, become very calm and easygoing – when they are usually edgy and demanding. Parents know this. They say of their children – Horace (not his real name…) must be coming down with something, he seems very easy to please today, Hortense (not her real name…) constantly wants hugs – she must be sick, she usually won’t let me hug her…

But this is of no interest to the prescribing doctor, as within allopathy, the doctor is only interested in the symptoms relating to the named disease, the cold, flu, mumps, measles, and not to the individualization of the illness, in these cases the changes in the emotional state.

And the interesting thing is – human beings can survive quite nicely without disease. But disease relies on human hosts for its very existence and development. So which deserves more examination – the disease as an external entity, or the disease as expressed in different individuals?

And that, dear reader, is what homoeopathy is all about.

Hahnemann’s First Provings

hahnemann111Hahnemann’s First Provings.

by Peter Morrell

For the full original article click here
From the earliest beginnings until now, the materia medica has consisted only of false suppositions and fancies, which is as good as no materia medica at all.” [The Organon, v.110]

“Medicine tests [provings] constitute one of the most critical points of Hahnemann’s teachings. This grandiose attempt to acquire unhypothetical medical experience was outwardly justified by the complete lack of objective methods of investigation and experimental systems in those days…[Hahnemann had] the courage to break away from hypotheses and systems…” [Gumpert, 122]

This essay explores the early provings of Hahnemann and attempts to place them into some kind of historical and conceptual context.

Introduction

The first provings of Hahnemann really need to be measured in two ways… first, against what came after them and the way homeopathy unfolded forwards from that point, which is the view most homeopaths adopt. And second against what existed before the provings and where he got his remedies from. The plain fact is that most of the remedies initially came from the allopathic materia medica. Without doubt also, translation work opened up for him “a world rich in the most glorious prospects,” [Goethe] of medical data, therapeutic hints, clinical observations and notes about drug actions, which must have enormously enriched his medical thinking and which practically no-one else was party to. So, Hahnemann must have been imbibing a wealth of clinical and therapeutic ideas from his many translations and historical researches, during the 1780s and 1790s.

Measuring backwards from what followed is an inherently deceptive approach as it fails to fully illuminate certain crucial aspects of the project as it must have been conceived in Hahnemann’s mind. The idea of experimentation on healthy subjects was more or less floating in the air in that epoch: Haller expressed it clearly, Stork also and Alexander, for example, made in 1766 a proving of Camphora some years before Hahnemann’s experiment with Cinchona bark. The idea of conducting provings probably came to Hahnemann from Von Haller:

“Indeed, a medicine must first of all be essayed in a healthy body, without any foreign admixture; when the odour and taste have been examined, a small dose must be taken, and attention must be paid to every change that occurs, to the pulse, the temperature, respiration and excretions. Then, having examined the symptoms encountered in the healthy person, one may proceed to trials in the body of a sick person.” [von Haller, 12]

However, four key points seem clear about the first provings. Firstly, they derived from his studies and detailed knowledge of drugs in use at the time; secondly, that as the project evolved empirically he must have been made acutely aware that the number, subtlety and diversity of symptoms produced by a drug were much greater than the clinical records had initially suggested; thirdly, that he involved members of his family and circle of close friends from an early stage: “the family…and every free moment of every one of them, from the oldest to the youngest, was made use of for the testing of medicines and the gathering of the most precise information on their observed effects.” [Gumpert, 114] Fourthly, he realised that the instructions to provers had to involve them recording everything, every subtle change in their psycho-physical totality and consciousness and not just the main physical symptoms. Hahnemann gives “pure experiment, careful observation and accurate experience alone,” [Gumpert, 144] as the sole determining factors that can generate any authentic medical theory. He “demanded a complete break with everything,”[Gumpert, 149] that had gone before.

He sought “to discover the specific relations of certain medicines to certain diseases, to certain organs and tissues, he strove to do away with the blind chimney sweeper’s methods of dulling symptoms.” [Gumpert, 99] He “instituted “provings” of drugs upon himself, members of his family, friends, students and fellow practitioners, keeping all under the most rigid scrutiny and control, and carefully recording every fact and the conditions under which it was elicited.” [Close, 147-8]

“If one has tested a considerable number of simple medicines on healthy people in this way… then one has for the first time a true materia medica: a collection of the authentic, pure, reliable effects of simple medicinal substances in themselves; a natural pharmacopoeia…” [The Organon, v.143]

The second and fourth points meant that Hahnemann was more or less forced into a deeper appreciation of the reality of holism in the organism simply by conducting provings, in other words from his empirical studies. This must have been a wholly unexpected aspect for him. What started as merely a test of one drug soon became a revelation as it “ceased to be a little trickle…it became a broad flood,” [Wells] and an entirely new materia medica took birth, unfolding before him in incredible and undreamt-of detail. The third point suggests that he realised at a very early stage that a drug’s impact upon the female system is rather different from its impact upon the male, and though complementary to each other, these two aspects of a proving reflect entirely different dimensions of the same drug. From the minute details of a proving, a new sense of completeness eventually developed in his mind, so spawning a synthesis: the drug picture. Likewise, in accordance with his initial aim in conducting provings, he obtained for each drug a reliable database, based on experiment and in which personal responses as well as general effects were all compiled into the final picture.

The importance of the first point simply means that he obtained his first hunches about the therapeutic activity of drugs partly from using them himself, and partly “as he explored the muttering tomb,” [Auden, New Year Letter, 217] of his translation work, during which he ‘saw into’ the apparent sphere of action of a drug from reading the accounts of many others in the past who had observed their action or seen them cure specific diseases or symptom clusters. Thus, he probably realised in advance of the actual provings that most drugs tend to have a multi-faceted action upon the organism.

Always intimately tied in with his views of drugs was his interest in and study of poisonings: “I found from the toxicological reports of earlier writers that the effects of large quantities of noxious substances ingested by healthy people…largely coincided with my own findings from experiments with those substances on myself or other healthy people.” [Hahnemann, 1810, v.110] “He collected histories of cases of poisoning. His purpose was to establish a physiological doctrine of medical remedies, free from all suppositions, and based solely on experiments.” [Gumpert, 92] The proving is in fact merely a mild and subtle form of poisoning, what we might term a ‘micro-poisoning,’ during which the power of the drug ‘takes hold’ of the prover and so reveals its therapeutic ‘sphere of action’.

samuel_hahnemann_s

First Proving

His studies of drugs had led him to the realisation that ‘single drugs in moderate doses’ offered up the best if not the only hope of creating a gentle and effective system of curative medicine. That point implicitly involved a prior and firm rejection of the Galenic diktat of using mixed drugs in strong doses, because instinctively and temperamentally he was “a most passionate opponent of mixed doses that contained a large number of ingredients.” [Gumpert, 96] This sets the scene for the first proving, of Cinchona in 1790, deriving as it did both from a translation work and from his own intimate knowledge and personal use of the drug in question. Here we have to note a possible peculiar sensitivity of Hahnemann himself to Cinchona bark, as he had contracted malaria in his youth, during his Hermanstadt journey.

It is important to recall that the first proving was not actually designed at the outset to study the effect of a drug on the entire human system, to prove a drug, as is often claimed. No, rather it was specifically designed to test a claim by Cullen that Cinchona acts curatively on fever because of its bitter action on the stomach. It is precisely this point which Hahnemann set about to test for himself: “in the following year, 1790, Hahnemann translated Cullen’s Materia Medica. Cullen (II. 108) explains the efficacy of Cinchona in intermittent fever by the “strengthening power it exerts on the stomach,” and adds, ” that he has never met with anything in any book which made him doubt the truth of his view.” [Ameke, 62] It is this point which inspired Hahnemann to see if the drug would indeed affect the stomach as Cullen suggested. To his surprise, he found it did not do that and his testing of it proved to be a revelation in other ways.

Hahnemann disagreed with Cullen’s theory of the action of Cinchona upon the stomach and so resolved to test the drug on himself. He “criticised the opinion of Cullen that the action of Peruvian bark [quinine] was that of a tonic to the stomach…and proceeded to argue that quinine acts in malaria because in healthy people it can produce symptoms similar to intermittent fever.” [Bodman, 3-4] In this first proving experiment, Hahnemann observed symptoms broadly similar to those of malaria, including spasms and fever. [Cook, 59; Haehl, I, 37, 39] With Cinchona, he had “produced in himself the symptoms of intermittent fever.” [Haehl, vol. 1, 39]

Much has been written about the first proving that need not be repeated here, but the main consequence of it conceptually for Hahnemann was that after ‘single drugs in moderate doses,’ the first proving firmly and irreversibly established his third axiom of homeopathy: the law of similars, and realisation of its significance must have finally extinguished any remaining fragmentary attachments Hahnemann may still have harboured concerning the therapeutic possibilities of contraries: “dying to embers from their native fire!” [Keats, line 366] The “similia similibus principle,” [Gumpert, 96] was indeed Hahnemann’s “brilliance of idea,” [Gumpert, 97] and was also “the doctrine which was to redeem him from the medical nihilism of despair.” [Gumpert, 104] This new principle, “was to him what the falling apple was to Newton, and the swinging lamp in the Baptistery at Pisa was to Galileo.” [Dudgeon, xxi] As Dudgeon says, “from this single experiment his mind appears to have been impressed with the conviction that the pathogenetic effects of medicines would give the key to their therapeutic powers.” [Dudgeon, xxi]

With the three axioms comprising the core of his newly emerging system: single drugs, moderate doses and similars, the drug proving thus became the fourth homeopathic axiom and around these axioms homeopathy not only more sharply crystallised and defined its doctrines and methods, but in this manner it finally separated itself entirely from its Galenic predecessor, emerging “from the ashes as a new phoenix,” [Hirsch, et al] and shaking off any remaining association with the dreaded ‘bleed and purge’ method of mixed drugs in high doses that Hahnemann had so detested and which had filled him with horror even from his first medical lectures in Leipzig and Vienna, for Hahnemann was indeed, “a most passionate opponent of mixed doses that contained a large number of ingredients.” [Gumpert, 96]

1790s Provings

Now, it would seem, Samuel Hahnemann towered like a colossus over the medical past and potentially over its entire future. It was doubtless at this “a crucial moment,” [Doren, 7] that he finally becomes a truly great pioneer, engaged in something momentous, prior to which he was only a potentially important figure. At this point, he probably first received “a hint of his future greatness,” [Doren, p.7], because it can hardly have escaped his attention that here was a magnificent moment, a turning point not only of solving a huge problem he had first set out to explore in 1783 when he gave up medical practice, but because in those moments had he not heard the “loud hymns that were the royal wives of silence?” [Auden, Kairos & Logos, 309] and seen the “shadows and sunny glimmerings,” [Palgrave, Wordsworth] of a new plan before him, the germ of an entirely new system pinned out like an architect’s drawing: “my system of medicine has nothing in common with the ordinary medical art, but is in every respect its exact opposite…the new method of treatment, called homeopathy, being the exact opposite of the ordinary medical art hitherto practised, has no preparations that it could give to the apothecary, has no compound remedies…” [Gumpert, 176-7] He had also manifested, “the courage to break away from hypotheses and systems…zones fatal to the human spirit.” [Gumpert, 122]

All he now needed were more provings—many more provings—and the opportunity to utilise these newly proven drugs on patients, on actual cases of sickness. “Day after day, he tested medicines on himself and others. He collected histories of cases of poisoning. His purpose was to establish a…doctrine of medical remedies, free from all suppositions, and based solely on experiments.” [Gumpert, 92]

“Many before Hahnemann, from Hippocrates down, had glimpses of the law [of similars], and some had tried to make use of it therapeutically; but all had failed because of their inability to properly graduate and adapt the dose.” [Close, 1924, p. 215]

The bright prospect that emerged from the provings meant that everything that had gone before was only theoretical, but now he stood on the brink of a new practical method and the exultation of being able to go beyond and take forward the work of his vitalist predecessors, Stahl, van Helmont and Paracelsus [“Paracelsus’s system…was a rude form of homoeopathy…but it was not equal in value to Hahnemann’s system…” [Dudgeon, 14]], in being able to adapt that previously elusive and will-o-the-wisp ‘law of similars’ into a practical working method, rather than just a theoretical aim, a hopelessly wistful medical dream: “he fought with redoubled energy for the purity of medicine,” [Gumpert, 96] and “strove to do away with the blind chimney sweeper’s methods of dulling symptoms.” [Gumpert, 99] The grim and ground-breaking task before him in the 1790s was therefore to conduct as many provings as possible. And that is precisely what he did: “undeterred by the magnitude of the task, Hahnemann set about creating a materia medica which should embody the facts of drug action upon the healthy.” [Close, 147]

It is worth stating that very little of a hard factual nature is known about precisely which drugs he proved and when. We have to try to piece that together from only “a few crumbs.” [Adams] Although in 1790 Hahnemann had only proved one drug in Cinchona, yet he had proved 27 by 1805, when he published his Fragmenta: “Hahnemann’s ‘Fragmenta de viribus medicamentorum positivis’…gives us, for the first time, an insight into the remarkable, and so far unknown, methods of investigation, which he employed. It supplies reports on the tests of twenty seven medicines the results of years of experiment on himself and his family.” [Gumpert, 122]

Given that the Fragmenta probably contained work completed up to the year 1804, when he settled in Torgau, then he had proved 27 drugs in only 14 years…almost two per year. Even by modern standards that is impressive progress. Indeed, such impressive progress for a “a cautious man, notwithstanding his utmost circumspection,” [Wollstonecraft, p.12] like Hahnemann suggests that he knew very clearly in his own mind that he was engaged in something “supremely important,” [Columbia, 7] and which demanded his complete attention at all times. Otherwise, such progress would inevitably have been slower, far less impressive, less driven and presumably much more haphazard.

The actual situation is complicated by the fact that in the same decade he was moving about all over Saxony with his growing family. The decade of the 1790s sees Hahnemann living in many different places and coincides with his most intense period of “wandering, yearning, curious—with restless explorations.” [Whitman, line 91] He changed town or residence fifteen times between 1789 and 1805: He lived in Leipzig, [1789-92], then “in 1791, poverty compelled him to remove from Leipzig to the little village of Stotteritz.” [Bradford] In 1792 he was in Gotha [1792], then Georgenthal [summer 1792 to May 1793], nursing Klockenbring; Molschleben [1793-4], Gottingen [1794], Pyrmont [Oct 1794-Jan 1795], Wolfenbuttel [1795], Brunswick [1795-6], Koenigslutter [1796-8], Hamburg, Altona [summer 1799], Molln, near Hamburg [Sept 1800-1801], Machern & Eilenberg, nr Leipzig [1801], Dessau [1802-4], Torgau [June 1805 to summer 1811]

It is also complicated by the fact that in 1792-3, for almost a whole year, he was resident in Georgenthal treating the insane patient, Herr Klockenbring. All such factors reduce the time he could have devoted solely to provings to something like 12 or 13 years and means he either proved several drugs back-to-back or he managed to prove several simultaneously using different groups of people. Furthermore, the remedies in the Fragmenta do contain a few surprises and it is very informative for us to scour the 1790 decade for other hints of what remedies he was scrutinisng at what point. For example, Bradford mentions [p.57] that Hahnemann was using Hepar sulphuris c.1794.

In 1796, in his “Essay on a New Principle,” Hahnemann mentions the following 46 remedies, of which 19 [41.3%] later appear in the Fragmenta as fully proven drugs: Nux vomica [p.318 p.278] Mercury [287], Chamomilla [267], Achillea [269], Valeriana [269], Viscum [269], Conium [270], Aethusa [271], Cicuta [271], Cocculus [271], Paris [271], Coffee [271], Dulcamara [272], Belladonna [273], Hyoscyamus [275], Stramonium [276], Tabaccum [277], Ignatia [279], Digitalis [279], Viola [281], Ipecac [281], Arbutus [282], Rhododendron [282], Ledum [282], Opium [283], Plumbum [287], Arsenic [291], Taxus [290], Aconite [291], Helleborus [292], Anemone [293], Geum [293], Drosera [294], Sambucus, [295], Rhus [295], Camphor [295], Ulmus [298], Cannabis [298], Crocus [298], Scilla [299], Veratrum alb [303], Sabadilla [302], Agaricus [303], Nux moschata [303], Rheum [Rhubarb] [303]

That Valeriana, Hyoscyamus, Stramonium, Ignatia, Mercury and Belladonna, were among the first drugs proved in the 1790s, might arouse curiosity and raise a few eyebrows. It somehow implies that Hahnemann regarded such predominantly ‘mental’ drugs, and perhaps mental symptoms in general, as highly important aspects of health and sickness in general. The degree to which this might also derive in part from his treatment of Klockenbring in 1792-3 seems also to be an interesting point to raise. After the Cinchona proving of 1790 he spent some time treating an insane man in 1792-3 but no mention is made of remedies…then in 1795 he mentions remedies like Ignatia and Hyoscyamus which MIGHT have been needed for his insane case…it is thus tempting to presume some undisclosed connection between that insane case of 1792-3 and his apparent use of remedies like Hyos and Stramonium and Ignatia with such very strong mental profiles. It also seems to suggest “entirely changed points of view,” [Whitman, lines 8-9] with him coming to regard mental symptoms as very valuable in all remedies around this time. It implies that he was widening his concept of the nature of sickness beyond a small compass of physical symptoms, which was at that time the standard allopathic conception in which he had been trained. It is difficult to discern exactly when he abandoned specific allopathic concepts and then placed his adherence solely upon specifically homeopathic ones. All these conceptual changes arguably derive from the provings.

The drugs in this list are ones he was using, ones he had read about and had an interest in, and some that he was proving or had proved. These were all drugs that stood out as significant to him; they were clearly all on his ‘shopping list’ for deeper investigation. It is clear that he was focused at this time on 40-50 drugs which he believed, when used singly, acted by similars and which he could add to his growing materia medica.

In 1798, the remedies mentioned in the essay “Antidotes to Some Heroic Vegetable Substances,” [Lesser Writings, pp.322-29] are as follows: Camphor, Mezereum, Coffea, Ignatia, Verat alb, Gamboja, Ant tart, Stramonium, Cocculus ind, Arnica, Opium, Cantharis, Scilla = 13 remedies of which 9 [69%] appear also fully proved in the Fragmenta of 1805.

The Fragmenta

The 27 drugs proved in the Fragmenta are as follows [Haehl, vol 2, p.82]:[followed by number of symptoms obtained by Hahnemann and those by others]

Aconitum napellus 138 75 [h got 65% of sx]
acris tinctura (Causticum) 30 0 [he got 100% of sx]
arnica montana 117 33 [he got 78% of sx]
belladonna 101 304 [he got 25% of sx]
camphora 73 74 [he got 50% of sx]
cantharis 20 74 [not listed by Bradford, p.80] [he got 21.3% of sx]
capsicum annuum 174 3 [he got 98% of sx]
chamomilla 272 3 [he got 99% of sx]
cinchona 122 99 [he got 55% of sx]
cocculus 156 6 [he got 96.3% of sx]
copaifera balsamum 12 8 [he got 60% of sx]
cuprum vitriolatum 29 38 [he got 43.3% of sx]
digitalis 23 33 [he got 41% of sx]
drosera 36 4 [he got 90% of sx]
hyoscyamus 45 290 [he got 13.4% of sx] [104 478 according to Seror]
ignatia 157 19 [he got 89.2% of sx]
ipecac 70 13 [he got 84.3% of sx]
ledum 75 5 [he got 93.8% of sx]
Helleborus 32 25 [he got 56% of sx]
mezereum 6 34 [he got 15% of sx]
nux vomica 257 51 [he got 83.4% of sx]
Papaver somniferum) opium 82 192 [he got 47% of sx]
pulsatilla 280 29 [he got 90.6% of sx]
rheum 39 13 [he got 75% of sx]
stramonium 59 157 [he got 51% of sx]
valeriana 25 10 [he got 71.4% of sx]
veratrum album 161 106 [he got 60.3% of sx]

As we can see, the number of symptoms which Hahnemann recorded for each drug ranges from 12 for Copaifera to 280 for Puls. Perhaps as an insight into his personality, or constitutional type, Hahnemann himself obtained the maximum number of symptoms from Chamomilla, Pulsatilla and Nux vomica; and the least number from Cantharis, Copaifera, Digitalis and Valeriana.

The Materia Medica Pura

This work was published 1811-31, and contains the following 65 fully proven drugs:

Aconitum napellus, Ambra grisea, Angustura, Argentum, Arnica, Arsenicum, Asarum, Aurum, Belladonna, Bismuthum, Bryonia, Calcarea acetica, Camphora, Cannabis sativa, Capsicum annuum, Carbo animalis, Carbo vegetabilis, Chamomilla, Chelidonium, China, Cicuta virosa, Cina, Cocculus, Colocynthis, Conium, Cyclamen europaeum, Digitalis, Drosera rotundifolia, Dulcamara, Euphrasia officinalis, Ferrum, Guaiacum, Helleborus niger, Hepar sulphuris calcareum, Hyoscyamus, Ignatia, Ledum, Magnes, Magnetis polus arcticus, Magnetis polus australis, Menyanthes trifoliate, Mercurius, Moschus, Muriaticum acidum, Nux vomica, Oleander, Opium, Phosphoricum acidum, Pulsatilla, Rheum, Rhus, Ruta, Sambucus, Sarsaparilla, Scilla, Spigelia, Spongia, Stannum, Staphisagria, Stramonium, Sulphur, Taraxacum, Thuja, Veratrum album, Verbascum

The Chronic Diseases

Contents of the Chronic Diseases [1829]

Agaricus, Alumina, ammon carb, ammon mur, anacard, ant crud, arsenic, aurum, Aur mur, Bar c, borax, Calc carb, Carb-an, carb-v, caustic, clem, coloc, conium, cuprum, digitalis, dulc, euphorb, graph, guiacum, Hepar sulph, Iodium, kali-c, lyc, mag-c, mag-m, manganum, mez, muriat ac, Natr carb, Natr mur, nitr ac, nitrum, Petroleum, Phosphorus, phos ac, Platina, sars, sepia, silicea, stannum, sulph, sul-ac, zincum [48 drugs]

A comparison of the remedies listed in the Fragmenta, the Materia Medica Pura and the Chronic Diseases is most informative and “throws a totally different light on,” [Berger] some interesting questions about Hahnemann’s methods and why certain remedies seem to ‘come in and then go out’ of favour. This is a very interesting study and presumably throws to light aspects of his changing views as the provings progressed. My own tentative view of this is that though he was initially excited by every new proving, as time wore on he sometimes saw few applications, or few successful applications, of some drugs in cases of sickness.

In this sense, his initial excitement for a freshly proven drug must have given way to a sense of disappointment about, say, its limited therapeutic application. In such an eventuality he was forced to downgrade such remedies as ‘lesser’ while retaining his enthusiasm for those ‘higher’ remedies, which tended to match many disease states and which had thus shown an ability to produce some successful cures. This seems be the best explanation of why remedies do appear to come and go across the visor of homeopathy as it evolved. I hold this view primarily because he was above all else an empirical and pragmatic man and nothing seemed to have impressed him more than results. He wished for a medicine “without the superfluous rubbish of hypotheses.” [Gumpert, 26] Everything “that savoured of theory was swept dramatically out of his mind. In his opinion there was only one criterion: success.” [Gumpert, 24] It also reveals the basic nature of the materia medica as it exists today with some 50 or 100 remedies doing most of the work and dozens of others that are very rarely used. That the materia medica is like this would simply seem to be an “inexorable law of nature.” [Harding, 20]

Another issue concerns the provings he published. For example, why does Hahnemann fail to include the Fragmenta drugs in the Materia Medica Pura or the Chronic Diseases? It seems strange that he does not aggregate these separate publications as he goes along into a growing and expanding work showing all provings in one volume: a growing homeopathic materia medica. He even updated the MMP and CD as separate works as time went on and failed to add some of the drugs in the Fragmenta. This would seem to reflect a mysterious and undisclosed attitude on Hahnemann’s part in relation to the provings. Why leave drugs out of later works that were fully proved in earlier publications? It does not seem to make any sense.

The following analysis of the drugs he proved yields many interesting facets of this subject.

1. Remedies mentioned in 1796-8 and then appearing in the Fragmenta are:
acon, bell, canth, camph, cocc, dig, dros, hell, hyos, ign, ledum, mez, nux-v, opium, rheum, stram, val, veratr
= 19/27 = 70.4% match between previous mention and proving in Fragmenta

2. Remedies mentioned in 1796-8 and appearing in MMP
acon, arn, bell, cann, camph, canth, cham, cicuta, cocc, con, dig, dros, dulc, hell, hyos, ign, ledum, merc, nux v, opium, rheum, sambuc, scilla, stram, taxus, val, veratr
= 27/65 = 41.54% match between previous mention and proving in MMP

3. Remedies mentioned in 1796-8 and appearing in CD
Dig, dulc, agar, arsen, con, hepar, mez
= 7/48 = 14.6% match between previous mention and proving in CD

4. Remedies mentioned 1790s but never proved by Hahnemann:
achillea, aethusa, anemone, arbutus, crocus, gamboja, geum, paris, plumbum, rhodo, sabadilla, tabacum, taxus, ulmus, viola, viscum
= 16/51 = 31.4% mentioned 1790s but never proved later

5. Remedies in Fragmenta never previously mentioned
caust, copaifera, cupr, puls
= 4/27 = 14.8% no previous mention and proving in Fragmenta

6. Remedies in MMP; never previously mentioned
ambra, argent, angustura, asaraum, aurum, bism, bry, calc-ac, carb an, carb veg, chel, cina, coloc, cycl, euphras, ferrum, guiac, magnetis arct, magnetis austr, manganum, mur ac, oleandr, phos ac, puls, ruta, sarsap, spig, spong, stann, staph, sul, thuja, verbasc
= 35/65 = 53.85% of MMP Remedies never previously mentioned

7. Remedies common to Fragmenta and MMP
acon, arn, bell, camph, cham, china, coccul, copaifera, dig, dros, hell, hyos, ign, ipecac, ledum, nux v, opium, puls, rheum, stram, val
= 22/65 = 33.85% overlap between Fragmenta and MMP

8. Remedies in CD also in MMP
aur, carb an, carb v, coloc, con, dig, dulc, guiac, hep, manganum, mur ac, phos ac, sars, stram, sulph

= 15/48 = 31.25% overlap between MMP and CD

9. Remedies in Fragmenta and CD
caust, cupr, dig, mez
4/48 = 8.3% overlap Fragmenta to CD

10. Remedies with no previous mention but in CD
agar, alumina, ammon carb, ammon mur, anac, aur-m, bar-c, borax, calc-c, clematis, coloc, euphorb, graph, iod, kali-c, lyc, mag-c, mag-m, nat-c, nat-m, nit ac, nitrum, petr, phos, platin, sep, sil, sul-ac, zinc
= 29/48 = 60.42% CD Rx totally new and previously unmentioned

Government Says Big Pharma Kills More People Than All Illegal Drugs Combined

Published: July 26, 2015

government-says-big-pharma-kills-more-people-than-all-illegal-drugs-combined

A new study has shown that pharmaceutical drugs cause more overdoses and more deaths than all of the illegal drugs on the market combined. According to the government’s own statistics, listed on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website, deaths relating to pharmaceutical drugs rose to roughly 23,000 last year, which accounts for over half of the total overdose deaths in the country for that time period.

Additionally, a recent study conducted by researchers with the University of Virginia, University of Arkansas, the Partnership for Drug Free Kids, and the American Institutes for Research reconfirmed the known dangers of pharmaceutical drug abuse.

The study concluded that, “Teens need help before they reach these tipping points for prescription drug abuse. Adults spotting teens with very high levels of anxiety and at least moderate use of other restricted substances should realize that these are students with a high likelihood of prescription abuse. Male teens with a high need to be popular and teens in general appear to be at exceptional risk. Campaigns must target parents as well, since they clearly underestimate both the physical risks of prescription drugs and the likelihood that their children will abuse these drugs.”

Sadly, the authors of the study described any average teenager, however, it does give us some insight into the root causes of teenage drug abuse.

As the study noted, teens are being pushed towards drug use by the high-stress environment that is created by modern culture and government schools. Many times, these students are even prescribed a wide variety of these medications to help them cope with the stresses of teenage life, which means that doctors are essentially putting their stamp of approval on daily teenage use of amphetamines like Adderall or tranquilizers like Xanax.

A study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) highlighted this phenomenon, pointing out that “Prescription drugs are seen as blessed by a trusted institution, the FDA, while increasingly aggressive advertising by drug companies simultaneously floods parents and children with messages that these substances are safe, popular, and beneficial.”

How to take the case and find the similimum-E.B. Nash

 Many failures to select the right remedy for the sick are due to a failure to select the line of properly taking the case. We might as well under take to recognise a person by looking at his hand, or hand and foot, as to cover the case with the appropriate remedy from a few symptoms when there are many to come into the complete picture.

Oftentimes in a case half reported the very symptoms that are most important, so far as the selection of the remedy is concerned, are left out. This is especially true with the homeopathic system of prescribing. It is so natural for a patient to think that if he tells us that he has a cold, or indigestion, or rheumatism, that we ought to be able to prescribe for him forthwith, and strange to say, I have met more than one physician who seemed to have no better conception of homeopathy than this; and evidenced it by asking such questions as , “Doctor, what is your best remedy for diphtheria”, or rheumatism, etc.

There is of course, only one proper answer to such a question, from a homeopathic standpoint, viz, the indicated one.

The name of a disease may be helpful so far as calling to mind a class of remedies that have been found curative, but the symptomatology of the case in its entirety, and especially in those symptoms which are peculiar and characteristic, in correspondence with the remedy which in its pathogenesis has the same, must decide which ONE of the class is the true similimum.

But some one will object, I cannot wait to hunt down a case like that. Life is too short. I answer “Then you will wait for your cure, and life may be too short for that”. Of course recovery may come (no thanks to us), but never cure.

Then if Similia Similibus Curanter is true, the taking of case in the entire range of its symptoms is of first importance.

Where shall be begin?

LOCATION

In the majority of cases, the patient will locate the trouble without your asking questions, as “Doctor, my head is troubling me.” It may be headache, vertigo or an eruption. It may be in the chest, as pneumonia,pleurisy, pericarditis or organic heart trouble; or it may be in the abdomen in the region of the stomach, liver, kidneys, or pelvic organs. In all such cases the patient will locate the pain, or other suffering, and we must if possible interpret in the light of our knowledge as physicians, and at the same time bear in mind the remedies known to produce similar pain and suffering, in the same localities. Or, if not borne in mind, all that remains for us to do is to hunt them up in our repertories, or Materia Medica. For instance: Is there a pain in the upper right chest, Arsenicum acts characteristically there.

Right middle chest? Belladonna, Sanguinaria, Calcarea ostearum, etc.

Lower right? Chelidonium, Kali carbonicum, Mercurius

Left  upper? Myrtus, Pix liquida, Theridion, Sulphur, Tuberculinum, etc

Left lower? Natrum sulphuricum, Phosphorous

Here I have named a few remedies that have a particular affinity for these locations in the chest, and in all these cases, this is generally in connection with lung troubles, and further examination will disclose the remedy  most appropriate.

If such pains in the chest region should occur outside the lung itself, it might indicate Bryonia, Squilla or Sulphur in pleuritic troubles, or Arnica, Cimicifuga, Ranunculus or Rhus tox in rheumatic pleurodynia, or intercostal rheumatism.

It is not the province of this writing to draw the distinction between remedies, which the case in all its local manifestations, concomitants and modalities would suggest, but to impress upon our minds the importance that must attach to locality.

But one will truly object that sometimes the sickness or suffering does not localise. The patient in answer to the question as to where the pain or suffering is located, answers : “All over, I feel badly all over; weak, aching, sore and trembling.”

This might be a case of incipient typhoid and Gelsemium or Baptisia would be in place, or the prostration might be a result of some drain on the system, as haemorrhage, leucorrhoea or loss of semen, and call for such remedies as China, Phos ac, Nat mur, Kali carb or Stannum.

Still although the trouble does not manifest itself in any particular part or organ (and some would relegate it to the realm of Sensation), I think it might come under the head of location, like absence of pain would come under the head of sensation. It is located all over and in no particular part. It is under the head of location in a negative sense and significant. Now, in either case we have made a good beginning in taking the case, and the next step is as to

SENSATION

Trouble in what location? What about it? Is it pain, coldness; heat or burning; sweating; cramping; emptiness; fulness; or any other abnormal sensation? Describe it as nearly as possible.

Is it a burning pain or sensation? Apis mellifica, Belladonna, Arsenicum, Cantharis, Capsicum, Phosphorous and Sulphur all have that very markedly

Is it sticking pain? Then Bryonia, Kali carbonicum and Squilla come to mind.

Sense of fullness? Aesculus, China, Lycopodium and Carbo veg; especially if in the abdomen, pelvis or anus.

Is it a sense of emptiness or goneness? Cocculus, Ignatia, Phosphorous, Sepia or Sulphur.

Constriction? Cactus grandiflora, Natrum muriaticum, etc.

Cramping? Cuprum, Colocynth, Magnesia Phosphorica.

Faintness? Ignatia, Hepar sulphuris, Nux moschata, Nux vomica, Sulphur.

Numbness? Aconite, Lycopodium, Platina, Rhus tox, Secale, are prominent.

And we might go on to mention many more sensations that have been observed in so-called disease and pathogenesis of drugs. These sensations are for purpose of prescribing, invaluable to the homeopathic physician, and occur in almost every abnormal state to which flesh is heir.

Not of less importance in the taking of the case than Location and Sensation is that which is termed

MODALITY

What aggravates or ameliorates?

First, as to time. Are the symptoms worse in the morning? Remember Nux vomica, Nat mur, Podophyllum, etc

Forenoon? The same.

Afternoon? Belladonna, Lycopodium, Apis mellifica.

Evening? Aconite, Pulsatilla, etc

Night? Arsenicum , Mercury, Rhus tox.

After Midnight? Arsenicum (1 to 3 A.M.), Kali carbonicum (3 A.M.), Rhus tox.

As to circumstances:

Aggravation on movement calls for such remedies as Bryonia, Nux vomica and Arsenicum

Amelioration of movement : Rhus tox, Pulsatilla, Ferrum, Lycopodium

Aggravation on descending : Arsenicum and Calc ost

Aggravation in wet weather : Dulcamara, Rhus tox, Natrum sulphuricum, Nux moschata, Rhododendron

Aggravation in dry weather : Hepar Sulphuris, Causticum, Nux vomica

Ameliorated by hot applications : Arsenicum, Magnesium phosphoricum

Ameliorated by cold applications : Apis mel, Pulsatilla

Aggravation in cold air : Hepar sulphuris, Arsenicum, Nux vomica, Silicea

Aggravation in warm air or weather : Antimonium crudum, Bryonia, Pulsatilla

Aggravation after eating : Nux vomica, Bryonia, Pulsatilla, Arsenicum

Amelioration after eating : Iodine, Chelidonium, Anacardium, Petroleum

Aggravated after fat food : Pulsatilla, Carbo vegetabilis

Fat food agrees and is desired : Nux vomica and Nitric acid

All these and many more may be classified under the head of what are by some called Generals. Another class is termed Particulars, because referring to regions or particular organs such as:

Diarrhoea aggravation in the morning : Sulphur, Bryonia, Podophyllum, Natrum sulphuricum and Rumex

At night : Arsenicum, China, Mercury, Psorinum.

Chest affections aggravation worse when lying : Psorinum, Laurocerasus.

Amelioration sitting : Arsenicum, Kali carb

Anal trouble, worse after stool : Aesculus, Aloe, Muriatic acid, Nitric acid, Sulphur.

Many more are there which are both general and particular just as important to show the equal importance of Modalities with Location and Sensation. To try and produce them here would be to incorporate a large part of Boenninghausen’s Pocket Book, and all the repertories extant.

We cannot use space to mention any of the many possible concomitants (another of Boenninghausen’s divisions), which are no less important than the preceding in the necessary “make-up” of a case, but will come to the apparent.

CAUSES

of diseased conditions. Boenninghausen includes these under the head of modalities, but they ought in my opinion to be seperated, as they often equal in importance the other three.
For instance was it fright? Aconite, Gelsemium, Ignatia, Opium, Lycopodium and Veratrum album occur to us.

Exposure to dampness or cold air : Dulcamara, Rhus tox, Natrum sulphuricum, Nux moschata 

or exposure to dry cold air : Aconite, Bryonia, Hepar Sulph, Causticum.

Cold bathing? Antinomium crudum, Rhus tox, Sulphur

Suppression of an eruption? Sulphur, Psorinum or other anti-psorics.

A badly treated or suppressed gonorrhoea? Thuja, Medorrhinum

We might under the head of causes mention many more than we have, but the skillful homeopathist will not under-rate any of them in his examination of the sick. And now, though coming late, we must not fail to call attention to another important thing for consideration, namely

CONSTITUTION AND TEMPERAMENT

Some would have noticed this first, and it is certain that the “personal” of the patient cannot be ignored and their diseases often present symptoms that find their similar in a certain class of drugs. Dr. TL Brown, one of the best prescribers I ever knew, used to say, that is he met a pure Pulsatilla temperament he would always find the symptoms and conditions to correspond. That is putting it strong, and it might be found that Nux vomica would be indicated in a Pulsatilla subject. These are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Sulphur will rarely be called for in a Calcarea ostearum temperament, an vice versa.

Iodine, Lycopodium and Nitric acid are three of the remedies that often find their indications in brunettes of spare habit, and so we find them in the remedies oftenest adopted to the sanguine, nervous and bilious subjects. Not only is this true in regard to the choice of remedies, but the rule holds good in the proving of drugs. The subject most responsive to the curative action of certain remedies will also be the most susceptible to their pathogenetic effects. Some undoubtedly place too much stress upon this feature in taking the case, and thus run into routinism, while others underestimate it. There is a point where extremes meet and form the completed circle.

Constitution and temperament must certainly come into the totality of the case.

This method of taking the case is the one adopted by Boenninghausen, and the outcome was his celebrated Therapeutic Pocket Book. There is another method in use, and employed by some of our best prescribers, which is also a good one, which I will illustrate by a case so taken. The symptoms are grouped under two heads Generals and Particulars:

Sr Generals 
(symptoms as given by the patient)
Generals
(Same as found in the repertory)
1 Worse from physical exertion Aggravation by physical exertion
2 Tendency to take cold Tendency to take cold
3 Efforts to think made the mind seem blank Aggravation by mental exertion
4 Easily hurt by what people say or do Sensitive
5 Mind dwells on breaking up of home Dwells on past disagreeable events
6 Which is a lasting grief Ailments from grief
7 She could not think or remember well Weakness of memory
8 Attacks of low spirits lasting days Sadness and mental depression
9 Has lost all ambitions Loss of ambition
10 Would hardly speak, even when addressed Aversion to talking
11 Fear of death, if left alone Fear of solitude
12 Trembling when tired or excited. Trembling externally
13 Felt as if going insane Fear of insanity
14 Worse after eating sweets Aggravated by sweets
15 Always weak since scarlet fever After scarlet fever
16 Felt very tired Weariness
17 Nervous prostration Nervous weakness
18 Lying down relieves Amelioration by lying down
19 Feels tired and bad in the morning Aggravation in the morning
20 Great menstrual difficulty Painful menstruation
21 Menses profuse Menses profuse
22 Menses long lasting Menses protracted
23 Menses too early Menses too early

 

Sr Particulars 
(symptoms as given by the patient)
Particulars
(Same as found in the repertory)
1 A bursting pain the front part of the head Bursting pain in the forehead
2 Redness of the nose Redness of the nose
3 Discharge from nose, bloody mucus Discharge from the nose, bloody
4 Nose is full of scabs Nose scabs
5 There are brown spots on the face Brown spots on the face
6 An unclean taste in the mouth in the morning Bad taste in the mouth
7 Intolerance of anything in her throat Throat sensitive to slightest touch
8 Stomach gets sour Sour eructations
9 Has heart burn Heartburn
10 Sensation of stone in the stomach Sensation of stone in stomach
11 Wind in stomach Flatulence in stomach
12 Stool is partly expelled and then recedes Stool slips back
13 Smarting pain in rectum Smarting pain in rectum
14 When not constipated stool is expelled like shot Stool shooting out
15 When desire for micturition is felt it has to be satisfied immediately, or urine cannot be retained Must hasten to urinate or urine cannot be retained
16 Colds of a croupy form Croupy
17 Hairs turned gray Hair becomes gray
18 Sensation of weight on her chest Heaviness in chest
19 Seems as if would strangle when coughing Choking when cough
20 When hurt very excited and heart palpitates Emotional excitement and palpitation
21 Curvature of the spine Curvature of the spine
22 Spine externally sensitive to touch Backs, pains, spine
23 Sudden desire for food which must be gratified Ravenous appetite
24 Palpitation caused by lying on left side Palpitation when lying on left side
25 Upper part of spine is stiff Stiffness of cervical region
26 Rubbing ameliorates Numbness ameliorated by rubbing
27 Burning in the back Heat up the back

This was the case, and was of one years standing. Before “chasing it down” in the repertories I predicted that Phosphorous would be the remedy. It was worked out by another physician, and when she got through the Generals she came to me with a smile and showed the result: Natrum muriaticum, 44; Pulsatilla, 39; Phosphorus, 38; Nux vomica, 38; Calcarea ostearum, 38; Sulphur, 37; Lachesis 32; Mercurius, 32.

“How about Phosphorus?” said she. I answered, work out the rest of it. The particulars stood : Phosphorus, 41; Nux vomica, 39; Sulphur, 37; Lachesis, 33; Pulsatilla, 31; Lycopodium, 27; Arsenicum, 27; Mercurius, 28; Calcarea ostearum, 25; Natrum muriaticum, 24.

Summary : Phosphorus, 79; Nux vomica, 77; Sulphur, 74; Pulsatilla, 70; Natrum muriaticum, 68; Lachesis, 65; Calcarea ost, 63; Mercurius, 60.

(After this work is done, I find that about the first seven remedies may be taken for further comparision. Not only the totality of symptoms, but those that are characteristic and peculiar. (See Organon paragraph 151), must be recognised. For instance if with the two remedies, Nux and Phos in the case, Phos had five characteristics, while Nux had ten, the later remedy would deserve preference and further examination of the pathogenesis, verified and unverified, would place it there. This is where the judgement and skill of the man with long experience and practice in the art of prescribing becomes invaluable)

Now I do not claim that I can with certainty always predict the remedy that will come out ahead. I remember another Phos case in which I predicted that Calc ost would be the remedy, and the result of the “hunt” placed it second.

To the skillful and experienced physician, the case so taken may sometimes stand out prominently in its characteristic and peculiar symptoms as to carry on its very face the sure indications for the remedy. But other cases will come to us so complicated that the best of us must make long and arduous study of it. Especially this is true in chronic diseases.

None, but the true homeopathic physician realises the importance of throroughly taking and working out such cases.

Rarely will a case come out so clearly that the cure can be performed with one remedy, but a succession of remedies will be necessary, and here is where the so-called complementary relations of remedies come in for recognition and skillful application.

  1. S.: On reviewing the foregoing, I feel constrained to add, lest we be charged with not being up-to date, especially in pathology, that for purposes of diagnosis, the tests for evidence of disease, bacteriological, chemical, etc should not be neglected. The urine, sputum, blood, excretions, etc, furnish important signs.

But for the purpose of prescribing, we do well to remember the teachings of Raue, who stood high both as a pathologist and prescriber. He said : “The symptoms which go to make up the choice of the remedy often stand outside those that go to make up the pathology of the case.” Every prescriber accorsing to Similia Similibus Curanter understands this.

When to change remedy based on symptoms.

I have a patient that came to me 27 years ago with chronic eczema.  Treatment was over 2.5 years and he has been free of eczema until August of 2014.

In the interim, he contracted gonorrhea 10 years ago, Chlamydia 5 years ago and then another infection of Chlamydia 1.5 years ago. All three infections were treated homoeopathically until symptom free and the tests showed clear.

It took nearly 11 months to clear this last bout of Chlamydia.  Latterly in the process, Mercurius was indicated again which cleared up the venereal infection completely. In August of 2014, patches of eczema started to appear again on his body and quickly spread all over. He now has eczema in all the places that he has 27 years ago.

It would seem that the infection with a venereal disease has removed the balance achieved for all this time. Skin problems are a family weakness, and he has been the only one to be free of it with treatment. Hahnemann pointed out that there are three main infections for the human race. 2 from direct contagion from Syphilis and from Gonorrhea, and one that is universal from an ancient disease source. He discussed how the infections can be conjoined or complicated.

I have treated the patient with 2 remedies, Mercurius and currently on Dulcamara. It has allowed the skin to calm a little but not too much.

I received this note last night.

“one thing i forgot to mention for the last 3 or 4 days my finger ends under the nails feel swollen and sore when i press them”

I questioned him if the finger ends were swollen and he stated that they felt like it more than obvious.

In examining the symptom in conjunction with the eczema, it came to Staphisagria.

paulrep

He is starting on the remedy today.

What we have here is a concomitant symptom complete in location and sensation and modality. Added to the main complaint, only two remedies come through and Mercurius is no longer useful to the case as it aggravates, but Staphisagria covers the totality.

 

 

Homoeopathy or Naturopathy: A Dialogue…of sorts…

 photo exploding homoeopath_zpsr1es7ux1.jpg

Last photo of an exploding homoeopath

Homoeopathy or Naturopathy: A dialogue…

 

So should I choose Homoeopathy or Naturopathy? Or are they the same thing?
NO THEY ARE NOT!
But it’s all natural right?
NO IT’S NOT THE SAME THING!
But homoeopathy is also natural medicine, isn’t it?
YES.
So why are you getting all upset at me in capital letters?

OK, I shouldn’t get upset, and certainly not in capital letters. But it irritates me. I wish Samuel Hahnemann had given this therapeutic a different name, I really do. It’s all very well for people to explain the name, explain how the different bits in Latin add up to “like cures like”. That’s all well and good – but it doesn’t make a darn bit of difference. There are still novels out there describing how the homoeopath tied a string to the main character’s big toe, and diagnosed her allergies…really, I read one last week…

Homoeopathy is based on a revolutionary prescribing principle, known since Hippocrates’ day, harnessed and developed by Samuel Hahnemann in the early 1800s. Naturopathy is for the most part based on various forms of herbal medicine, nutrition and other health-related therapeutics.

But…but… they’re both natural aren’t they?
Grrr… what part of “revolutionary prescribing principle” don’t you understand…
Well – really – I don’t understand any part of it…what does that even mean?

Sorry, sorry, it’s just that…it’s like this….Do you have a kid with a messy room?
Yes, doesn’t everyone?
And is he capable of keeping it tidy?
Of course he is, he just can’t be bothered…keeps throwing his dirty laundry on the floor…and he thinks I don’t know about those old magazines under…

Yes, well, but you think he’s capable of keeping it tidy?
Yes, he is.
So why do you bring in a cleaner?
The cleaner tidies his room for him.
Imagine you had some way of getting him to clean his own room?
Wow, that would be… (sigh) but it isn’t going to happen…he refuses to do anything…

Well naturopathy is the same as bringing a cleaner in, and homoeopathy is getting him to clean it himself…

Now I really don’t understand… naturopathy is a cleaning service? And homoeopathy is….? He’s never going to clean his room on his own… he’s a lazy…

OK… let’s try again….Homoeopathy is based on “like cures like”…
And what does that even mean? Is it something to do with facebook?
It’s cure by similars…
Is that like witches and black cats? No I remember now, that’s “familiars”…

We use substances that can cause symptoms in healthy people similar to the illness…
Oh, so homoeopathy is vaccinations!!! Now I understand-

NO, HOMOEOPATHY IS NOT VACCINATIONS!!!
There you go, getting angry in capital letters again. I’m just trying to understand. I know homoeopathy is good for you – I took something homoeopathic years ago and it completely cleared up my haemmorhoids..

Sorry about getting so angry… what was it you took?
Oh, it was castor oil, I had to put some on my… you know… later I heard it can actually be used to make…

KA-BOOOOOM!!!!

… explosives…?!?  Hello…?? Still there…??

 

 

 

 

I.H.M. changes coming.

We had a meeting recently, and are pleased to announce some of the changes coming to the I.H.M. online presence. We currently have 3 blogs and have decided to blend into the main Blog, which is this one. This gives us the benefit of all the editors and contributors joining together to offer a more diverse offering.

Also, as one of the blogs is in Spanish, bringing it into the I.H.M. main blog will open up the readership for the many Spanish homoeopaths we have that read in English or have to change sites to read what has been written.

We also will be releasing a new version of the P&W SYNOPSIS program. More on that later.

 

 

We will also be releasing a book repertory. More on that later.

 

 

 

We will also be releasing our 12 month home based teaching course. More on that later.

 

 

Dr Andrew Wakefield – America has been sold out.

Autism on the rise in Vietnam and Korea

Vaccine centres have opened up in Vietnam and Korea in the last few years. Inquring minds want to know if there is a link.
New study finds autism rates in South Korea now at 1 in 38 childrenRead more: http://www.autismsupportnetwork.com/news/new-study-finds-autism-rates-south-korea-now-1-38-children-38994322#ixzz3fC62Gkvc

TN News

Vietnam

Unofficial figures imply a rapid increase in the number of autistic children in Vietnam, but the country lacks experts and standard autism intervention programs.

Saigon Tiep Thi newspaper Wednesday quoted a study from the National Hospital of Pediatrics as saying that the number of children diagnosed with autism at the Hanoi-based hospital’s Physiotherapy Department in 2007 was 50 times higher than in 2000.

In a Hanoi district, 10 percent of 733 disabled children had the developmental disorder, according to the study reported at a conference on care and education for autistic children organized in the capital city on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, in Ho Chi Minh City, 324 autistic children received treatment at local hospitals in 2008, a 160-fold increase from just two in 2000.

Speaking at the conference, Dr. Do Thuy Lan from the Morning Star Center for children with intellectual disabilities in Hanoi said statistics on autism are yet to be available in Vietnam.

But, based on the rate of autistic people to the total population in the UK, there could be some 160,000 people with the disorder in Vietnam, she said.

Appearing in the first three years of one’s life, autism often involves problems with social and communication skills.

According to Lan, Vietnam not only fails to compile figures about autism, but also to standardize services and programs to detect autism and intervene with behavioral treatments and medicines.

At some clinics, doctors with a lack of experience and knowledge have mistaken autism for intellectual disabilities, she said.

In Hanoi, despite the capital’s advanced clinics, not many doctors  are knowledgeable about the disorder and can give an accurate diagnosis, she cited.

 2009-2010 study on disabled children in Asia found 76.5 percent of 254 surveyed parents of autistic children in Vietnam said their kids’ disorder was not detected until they were more than two years old.Moreover, even though hundreds of centers claiming to treat autism have been founded in Vietnam since 1995 — aside from kindergartens that claim to specialize in teaching autistic children —  the techniques used are varied and unregulated.

In fact, they are using a total of 12 different autism assessment tools imported from other countries like Australia, Japan, and the U.S. without translating them into Vietnamese, said Dr. Le Van Tac, director of the Research Center of Special Education.

This led to different centers performing different tests and drawing different conclusions on the same children, worrying parents who want to get second opinions on the matter.

Experts at the conference — held by the Vietnam Institute of Educational Sciences, the U.S. Embassy in Vietnam, the United Nations Children’s Fund, and the Autism Speaks — also pointed out that most teachers of autistic children have no autism-specific training.