Reply to Romyn and phos

[elham mohajir]

Dear Romyn, phos etc,
Thank you all for your emails. But believe me I am not trying to defend anything or any philosophy. What I said in my post is what I have seen over years of practice. There was a time when I was posted in a goverment dispensary in a village and I had to treat homoeopathically about 80 patients every day between 8.00 am to 2.00 pm. You can imagine the kind of case taking I would do and the kind of prescribibg I would do. But still I could manage to releive my patients. I knew shortcuts for almost all diseases a few questions and I would prescribe. If the patient had a pain in the right shoulder, I would ask a few questions and probably precribe something like ferr.met, sang. Chel, Kalm etc. The pain would disappear and he would come back after few days or weeks with pain somewhere else. (Saying you cured my old disease now please cure this.) I would again Cure!! him with another shortcut.
But where I would prescribe on totality and contitutionally the patient would disappear for a long time.
If you give Rhus tux to an arthritic patient even when all the symptoms are there you will only palliate. It is the same with Ars. Alb in asthma. It quickly relieves one attack, but the asthma comes back and then Ars. will not cure, it will not even palliate even though the symptoms of the attack resemble ars.
So what I said in my post is what I believe to be true. I have done all kinds of prescribing, I have used all potencies and I assure you, there is no better way than classical Homoeopathy.
But as far as we never being static you are right, but at one time there is only one remedy that will cover all our symptoms. So a constitutional medicine is constitutional for a particular time. But at that particular time ou can give a medicine that will remove part a disease. That is what my example of Am-mur was all about.

It is different with acute diseases here you disregard the constitutional symptoms and concentrate on the acute disease and prescribe for that. But in chronic diseases there is no shortcut.
best regards
Elham
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Phosphor]

are there you will only palliate. It is the same with >Ars. Alb in asthma.
It quickly relieves one attack, but the >asthma comes back and then Ars.
will not cure, it will not even >palliate even though the symptoms of the
attack resemble ars.
but this refers to the all-important phenomena of chronic miasms and chronic
disease. You are absolutely correct that a 'superficial' analysis of
symptoms will not do in such a case; we have to examine the case history in
detail and prescribe a miasmatic remedy which has the depth of action. but
this has nothing to do with the idea of constitutional remedy as understood
these days.

Andrew

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Andrew,

Re whether this addresses "constitutional" remedy as used today -- I think
one problem is that the term has at least two general meanings: One is as
Eizayaga uses it -- to mean the "healthy remedy picture", what they would be
"underneath" any disease states, to use as presumed preventive.

The second is I believe (??) the more common usage of the word, which
basically means "as broad a picture as I'm able to find right now", one
that addresses the quirks, SRPs, loves/hates etc. of the person "at all
levels"; or, "the one remedy that will move (almost) everything else in the
case that needs moving". By this second definition, the miasmatic remedy
you and Elham are talking of would indeed be "the constitutional remedy"; or
so I gather.

And I will concede that for some cases this goal won't be attainable...

Shannon
on 1/12/03 5:31 PM, Phosphor at phosphor@hotkey.net.au wrote:

[Fatima Williamson]

Last few days it has been an interesting discussions between Andrew
(phosphor), Peter and Elham.
I very much agree with Peter and Andrew. I must say Elham you made me
confused in your opinion. On one hand you talked ristrically about Ha and
classical Homoeopathy on the other hand you said you treated 80 patients
within a few hours. Then you're confidently talking about the remedy can
palliate or not and so on where is your proof?, Also sarcastically you
are saying'' if any one give me Rx for Dibitis,....I'll be endebted all my
life'' What you mean????????
There is no spicific Rx for spicific disease even if you just pickup a name
of any diseasein Rep book there are numbers of Rx listed so you have to
individualise any way.
We all know about all the philosophy, totality, individuality and all the
principles. We better remember individuality is one of the main principles
in
Homoeopathy and if that is so why should we limited our selves to only one
way of thinking and one way of treatment (only clasicall, only...). There
are different methods of
treatments, different approaches within the whole principles of homoeopathy
that can be met and practice. Most of our knowledge is based on clinical
practices within individual practitioner. If some one even by a chance or
intuition give a Rx and results the cure what is a big deal? I am sure you
know Dr Rama Krishna, Dr Iziaga, Robin Murphy and numbers of others whom
have totally different approach than Ha or Kent and others. It is important
to help patient to achieve his original health. Do we need to make
Homoeopathy a RELIGION? There are enough around. I like to add up the phrase
the Einstein said: '' parachute works better when is open''
I really enjoy and learn a lot in this list my especial thanks to Dr
Shahrdar.
All the Best,
Ftima

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Fatima and all,

Because Elham's remarks came to me as a breath of fresh air (most similar to
my own understanding, I guess), I'd like to comment (and Elham correct me if
I've misunderstood you!):

on 1/15/03 10:43 AM, Fatima Williamson at fatima.williamson@dial.pipex.com
wrote:
I believe one of Elham's points here was that you *can* prescribe in
different ways, on "different totalities", with evident success. I gather
that his other point was that the "deeper" treatment (treating the soil, or
the *patient* as well as the disease accomplishes more over the long run.
He was able to treat 80 pts per hour and *take care of their present
complaints effectively* (treating the disease), but these patients returned
later, with other diseases (because the "soil", the background, had not been
strengthened).

He contrasted that with his results from a slower, more thorough
"constitutional" prescribing (here meaning "present overall picture", aka
"treating the patient" -- *not* using the word in the Eizayagan sense),
which addressed their *overall* state, not merely the presenting complaint
or particular disease. I think there's a lot of confusion from the fact
that the term "constitutional remedy" has a very different meaning in common
usage (see my other post), compared to the usage Eizayaga gives it. So
probably we should use a different term...

Elham said that when he treats in this slower but more holistic way --
considering the entire patient, not merely their presenting "disease" --
those patients tend *not* to come back soon, because they stay well for
longer.
Not sure what you mean here. Remedies definitely *can* palliate. Any
remedy that gives temporary relief without achieving actual *healing* (e.g.
without reducing likelihood of recurrence, or without improving overall
health and wellbeing), has palliated. That is the *definition* of
palliation. Any remedy that heals a particular episode of disease, without
strengthening the underlying soil that gave rise to the disease, has
palliated (in context of the overall health status, tho it may of course
have "cured" the individual case of disease).
Yes, this was just his point.
I think this is just a "terminology" problem -- what do we mean by
"disease"? Of course Andrew wasn't using the term allopathically, either.
Yes, and Elham was describing ways in which he personally uses at least two
distinct methods of treatment -- to treat the specific presenting complaint
/ disease, which can be quicker, as you are not aiming to accomplish as
much; and "treat the patient", which takes longer, requires a broader
understanding of the patient, but can (in some cases) accomplish more, in
that it strengthens the patient and thereby prevents *future* problems, as
well as fixing current ones.

Most of our knowledge is based on clinical

Speaking as one who was *born* in a state of ill-health, I have to object to
this! I will say it is often important to help patients *improve greatly*
upon the state of original health!!!! I am now (at age 50) *much* healthier
than at any prior stage of my life. So forget about "achieving original
health", unless you're talking about prior lifetimes!

Do we need to make

??? But Elham is saying he uses a variety of approaches. Where does the
accusation of closemindedness or "religion" come from???

Best wishes,
Shannon

[Dr Waqar Taji]

Hi,
Yes you are absolutely right, Arsenic will only palliate if if it is not the
right remedy.
But what if Arsenic is the right remedy?
Most of the common symptoms of Arsenic resemble Asthma symptoms and if the
prescription is based on common disease symptoms then results will always be
poor.
If prescription of arsenic is based on Uncommon and peculiar symptoms as
well as deeper understanding of the case then ARESENIC AND ARESENIC ALONE
CAN / SHOULD HELP.
Who says Arsenic is not antimiasmatic?
Happy learning,
Waqar Taji