Single remedy

[isali]

A very good day Andrew and much appreciation for your thoughts. So then,
you raise an additional question. Did Hahnemann recognise from his
observations that complex states of disorder may then require a protocol
which is based on more than one similia? And that he set forth that the
best procedure is to address them one at a time? To wit there is the
adherence to the single remedy procedure.

Separately, of the three delineated possibilities, of which I would concur,
could we not then administer to the presentation the best similia, and if
there is proximal presentation within the 'totality' of symptoms more than
one similia, could we not employ a combination of singles concurrently
rather than sequentially without disturbance to the VF?

It is the third possibility which is potentially problematic, or at the
least more so.

What might your thinking be as to the utilisation of the wave theory to
describe our observations?

Good cheers

[Phosphor]

disorder may then require a protocol which is based >on more than one
similia?
his preactice in Paris suggests as much [one remedy in the morning, another
in the evening etc].

i believe the principle underlying the single remedy doctrine is simply to
give less medicine rather than more. if u can cure with one remedy thats
better than using two or three. Hn was reacting against the complicated
herbal formulas being used in his day.

than one similia, could we not employ a >combination of singles concurrently
rather than sequentially >without disturbance to the VF?
this can be answered only by experimentation.

describe our observations?
As I said, i have no idea what wave theory is. What is it?

andrew

[Zaidee]

Dear Soroush,

Yes I second you...the facts you have enunciated are VALID EVERYTIME. These
are universal. Thanks for the time. Take care.

Sincerely,
Zaidee

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:41:49 -0000
From: "Finrod"
Subject: Single remedy

Dear Zaidee
You are ABSOLUTELY spot on. Thank you.
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 02:17:00 +0500
From: Zaidee
Subject: Re: Protocol, Message: 18, Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002
===========
Causticum is a very good example of the remedy that Hn produced - but it is
only prescribed on the basis of symptom similarity.
Where is the idea of Symptom Similarity when using a combo?
Although it is valid to swiftly change remedies as the patient's conditions
change (esp in an acute), I find it wrong to change too early. Again many
cases are spoilt by too early a change of remedy.
Kent says NEVER desert a remedy that has done good. Go to a higher potency
first to make sure that you have exhausted the action/usefulness of a remedy
before you change. (of course that the patient's condition has changed so
much that you now need to change the remedy.)
I would advise caution to changes of remedy. If you have the time, take it!
Rgds
Soroush

[Piet Guijt]

Andrew wrote:
and:
Hello Andrew,

We had this discussion before and you also with David Little, I regret to see you keep on making the same mistakes.
I give it one more try:
What is disease? someone is not at ease!
Disease is not a guest in a room, the constitution. Disease, symptoms are a reaction of the constitution to disease influences/ tendencies, not only a guest from outside, that is covered by Isopathy.
When you see disease just as an enemy from the outside, you don't understand what individualisation in Homeopathy means.
Ofcourse there are levels of disease, and not always is the whole, all aspects of the constitution involved, but a certain part is.
This involved part gives the disease symptoms the characteristic features, and the most dominating ones in total ask for one remedy at a time.
Even 'local' symptoms are at a certain constitutional level.
I know your point of view is a black/white reaction to 'constitutional prescribing' in a way that all characteristics of the person/ constitution and symptoms are 'always' prescribed for. This remedy is a good choice in case the whole constitution is used to express the disease.
But there are more possibilities then this, and then you have to look more to the other disease causing factors also.
For this take a look at the Organon APH 5, all possibilities are covered there. Treating the patient not the disease means that every patient gets his individual remedy for a certain disease for example Flu, Eczema etc.
Disease is nothing without a host, so you simply cannot separate it from the person who is suffering it.
This is how 'disease' is used in the Organon, not in a Allopathic/ clinical way.
'Disease' in the organon is always: 'Patient in disease' but this does'nt always mean the whole constituion or that the disease influence/cause may be ignored.

Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Phosphor]

see you keep on making the same mistakes.
let me explain again in different words. i stay in the ordinary world of
observation, and do not engage in any metaphysical speculation about the
'real' nature of a disease etc. so inthis ordinary world [which Hn says we
should reside our thoughts in]

1. diseases really do exist. if a patient has bronchitis, he doesn't have
pancreatitis, even if Iris could theoretically be the remedy in both cases.
2. we look for the more unusual symptoms to prescribe on. this implies there
are usual symptoms, ie the ordinary pathological state of an illness, which
manifest in certain tolerably fixed ways.
3. if there are no unusual symptoms, we can prescribe on the more ordinary
pathological symptoms. hence the existence of books like Cowperthwaite and
Farrington.
4. there is no proscription against a patient having two or more diseases at
the same time. you could have a cold and have hypertension with gallbladder
stagnation. if these disease arose at different times there is no
justification in assuming they have some underlying connection. so you can
and should treat them individually, as they are hiding out in separate parts
of the organism, as Hn says in #42[?].
5. on investigation, it may transpire there is a connection between
them...ie
a/ they have same unique features of pain or amelioration etc
b/ they fit well in a diagnosis of chronic miasm
c/ together with mental disposition and other general symptoms of the person
as a whole, they form a picture responding to a constitutional type.
in these cases you give one remedy to cover the lot. in doing this i make no
analysis or speculation about how the disease energy intereacts with the VF
[a concept which is itself beyond any analysis]. this is all in the black
box of mystery.

you may use 'constitution' more widely than my more limited [and therefore
more meaningful] sense, but putting this semantics to one side, tell me
where you disagree with this protocol.

cheers
andrew

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Piet,

Andrew did say that a part of his model is e.g. co-existence of what I
called "different levels" of disease, which I elaborated as meaning possible
coexistence of e.g. an acute picture, organ pictures, pictures caused by
local trauma, etc., etc. Andrew preferred the model of "rooms", rather than
the model of "levels", and I have no problem with that. (I agree that
"levels" is a bit of a questionable term for it...) This is certainly so,
otherwise no remedy would ever work *except* for the deepest constitutional
remedy (clearly not the case).

E.g. I can prescribe successfully for a person, even if I am unable to find
their "deep" constitutional remedy -- I just won't be prescribing *as*
successfully. But I can still treat their acutes, I can still successfully
give Arnica for the occasional sprain or fall, chelidonium for their
constitutionally weak liver, nux to get past a hangover, even combo remedies
to sleep.

Yes one can argue that all of these "separate diseases" exist within the
greater scope of the "underlying constitution" (tho this argument is a
harder one when faced with e.g. effects of great trauma etc.), but it does
not negate the fact that we also have "sub-diseases" that *can* be
recognized and treated "separately".

I know that some folks take this approoach farther, into the realm of seeing
e.g. more than one "constitutional" remedy, and with this I share your
skepticism as regards most cases, but really that is a separate area, which
would I think remain largely theoretical; even for those cases where one
*can't find* a single, overarching constitutional remedy, we could never
prove there isn't one! Some would argue that there is; others argue that
there is not. Who knows...

Cheers,
Shannon
on 12/22/02 7:01 AM, Piet Guijt at piet@guijt.myweb.nl wrote:

[George Kaplan]

Dear Piet,
How does this fit with Hahnemann's use of prophylactics? There he did not
seek to individualise the remedies. He was preventing the same disease in
all the different individual patients.
And yet, a homeopathic remedy is nothing more than a disease itself, albeit
an artificial one. It has no host and exists independently, ready to act
upon the organism when needed. This shows that a disease field must be able
to exist independently of another living entity; ergo it is wrong to say
that it is nothing without a host.

George A. Kaplan
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/feat ... I=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getm ... photos_3mf

[Phosphor]

Piet said:
individual remedy for a certain disease for example >Flu, Eczema etc.
"treat the patient not the disease' is the defining motto of classical
homeopathy, so it is odd to say the least Hn never said anything like it.
The correct Hn position is: treat the disease as it appears in the patient,
not as it appears in the textbook.

Later on people developed the idea of constitution [perhaps from reading
Ayurvedic literature]. this also works in its right place; it just never
appeared in Hn.

andrew

[Piet Guijt]

Andrew wrote:
Hello Andrew,

Yes, but not every patient with bronchitis gets the same remedy, so 'bronchitis' is not the whole disease, but just the peripherical part, for the choice of the remedy not that important.
What Soroush said is right.
In case of Flu everyone who has it, is infected by the same type of virus, but they may need all a different remedy for it.
The virus is your guest in the hotelroom. But the resulting diseasepattern depends also on the host, the hotel.
What is this factor? The constitutional part, or more accurate the constitution and predispositions.
For your model you just only use the peripherical, pathological part and yes this is a guest in a room.
But you forget the most essential part which shows the individual reaction of the organism the Central part.
This reaction goes mainly through the PNEI-system (Psych-Neuro-Endocrine-Immunological). This is the overlapping part of disease which is not bound to your roomtheory.
All existing disease at a time share this system, and this system shows us the higher level of disease, the more clearer it is, the more clearer your remedy choice is and higher the potency must be.
When this part of disease falls to the background, because another disease demands the attention of the organisme more now, it is useless to give the remedy for it, because the state of the organism is different now, asking for another remedy.
Ofcourse the peripherical part of the disease on the background is not vanished yet, it is the more material, damage part that stays, but the peculiar characteristic features are more or less gone.
I know how you come to your 'disease' insights (Saine), and in a way I agree, but it is only a part of the whole truth.
It is one extreme point.
One extreme lets say on the left, is the true constitutional remedy, based on the 'nucleus' (Masi) or never changing state of the spirit.
On the right extreme there is only the local pathology where not the influency of the resisting organism, but the disease (like Cancer) runs the show.
But the way I see it BOTH are true, depending on the case.
Most cases we find in between, some constitutional part AND disease part: ratio 100/0 90/10, 80/20, 70/30 etc.
This ratio and the nature of constitution/ predisposition and nature of disease influence/tendency decide the resulting disease pattern.
You can have the true constitutional remedy (Remedy A) A deep constitutional remedy (remedy B) Pathological remedy (RemedyC) etc. but on which level the description must be is guided by the most dominating symptoms.
I just want you pull you back to the centre, look on what constitutional level (this is much more clear then room) the disease is.
Is it illness on a more constitutional level, you can use the characteristics connected to the disease for selecting the correct remedy. You shoold be a fool to ignore them here.
When your case is on a more advanced pathological level, you need to look more to the local peculiarities. Again you shoold be a fool to ignore them here.
This is the way I see this and it is all covered by the Organon (APH 5&6!!!!)
I have no problem with APH 42/43, but only with your bad memory.

kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Piet Guijt]

Andrew wrote:

Hello Andrew,

Yes, but not every patient with bronchitis gets the same remedy, so 'bronchitis' is not the whole disease, but just the peripherical part, for the choice of the remedy not that important.
What Soroush said is right.
In case of Flu everyone who has it, is infected by the same type of virus, but they may need all a different remedy for it.
The virus is your guest in the hotelroom. But the resulting diseasepattern depends also on the host, the hotel.
What is this factor? The constitutional part, or more accurate the constitution and predispositions.
For your model you just only use the peripherical, pathological part and yes this is a guest in a room.
But you forget the most essential part which shows the individual reaction of the organism the Central part.
This reaction goes mainly through the PNEI-system (Psych-Neuro-Endocrine-Immunological). This is the overlapping part of disease which is not bound to your roomtheory.
All existing disease at a time share this system, and this system shows us the higher level of disease, the more clearer it is, the more clearer your remedy choice is and higher the potency must be.
When this part of disease falls to the background, because another disease demands the attention of the organisme more now, it is useless to give the remedy for it, because the state of the organism is different now, asking for another remedy.
Ofcourse the peripherical part of the disease on the background is not vanished yet, it is the more material, damage part that stays, but the peculiar characteristic features are more or less gone.
I know how you come to your 'disease' insights (Saine), and in a way I agree, but it is only a part of the whole truth.
It is one extreme point.
One extreme lets say on the left, is the true constitutional remedy, based on the 'nucleus' (Masi) or never changing state of the spirit.
On the right extreme there is only the local pathology where not the influency of the resisting organism, but the disease (like Cancer) runs the show.
But the way I see it BOTH are true, depending on the case.
Most cases we find in between, some constitutional part AND disease part: ratio 100/0 90/10, 80/20, 70/30 etc.
This ratio and the nature of constitution/ predisposition and nature of disease influence/tendency decide the resulting disease pattern.
You can have the true constitutional remedy (Remedy A) A deep constitutional remedy (remedy B) Pathological remedy (RemedyC) etc. but on which level the description must be is guided by the most dominating symptoms.
I just want you pull you back to the centre, look on what constitutional level (this is much more clear then room) the disease is.
Is it illness on a more constitutional level, you can use the characteristics connected to the disease for selecting the correct remedy. You shoold be a fool to ignore them here.
When your case is on a more advanced pathological level, you need to look more to the local peculiarities. Again you shoold be a fool to ignore them here.
This is the way I see this and it is all covered by the Organon (APH 5&6!!!!)
I have no problem with APH 42/43, but only with your bad memory.

kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]