Constitutional tx [was: course in NYC]

[Shannon Nelson]

From your brevity I wonder if you don't want to say more about it, or figure
it will be a troublemaker, but I am interested...

Are you using the term in the Eizayagan sense, or do you mean that a remedy
prescribed on the basis of "totality" is not effective in curing disease, or
??? I still have quite a bit of confusion over the "treat the patient"
versus "treat the disease" debate, and I assume it's this issue that you
have in mind? Can I draw you out more on your opinions/observations about
this, or would you rather I drop it?

Shannon
on 8/5/03 4:37 PM, George Kaplan at dr_georgekaplan@hotmail.com wrote:

[J.VENKATASUBRAMANIAN]

The debate mentioned over treat the patient or treat the disease can
be slightly modified thus. The person in disease ( rather the vital
force in disarray) and the personality of the undiseased person. The
second one is being vociferously put forward by the school of
predictive homeopathy headed by Praful Vijayakar Of Mumbai, India.
But aphorism 153 of Organon talks about the picture of disease in
very certain terms and the same sentence pattern is repeated in other
aphorisms. Hahnemann's injunctions aboutcollecting details of the
past and present details has perhaps led to this cropping of
different schools. Hahnemann just wanted to confirm the disease to
the artificial disease of the remedy in the suscptible individual
which was later stretched out to confirm to swedenbourg's idea of
medicine for the patient and not disease. This fact struck me when I
was reading the material at www.boger-boenninghausen.com of Dr
Weitbrecht. This is an interesting site and Dr Weitbrecht has studied
the original German manuscripts of Boenninghaussen and has been
following his methods with reportedly good success. The much touted
mental angle being the first to be considered as per the Kentian
analysis is taking a severe beating in his analysis and mentals are
for a conforming picture unless they dominate the physicals.

For those who have read 'Roberts' principles..' the constitutional
remedy is just selected according to the susceptibility of the
individuals and the mentals acting as the signboards. Suddenly I
started respecting Nash whose work I never regarded much earlier
because of his less emphasis on mentals. When I read nash again there
was the mental picture which had its place where it belonged.

Though not closing the mind on new thinking, the completely
contradictory nature of today's theories with that of Hahneman should
make one doubly cautious in putting them into practice.

I will give an example. The fastidiousness of Arsenicum. This is
being stretched to accommodate all the tidy persons in its ambit! One
materia medica author ( Ms Anima Chakraborty) describes this sudden
neatness as morbid fastidiousness. This confirms to the Hahnemannian
dictum of the disease picture. Only here the remedy has its curative
action.

This issue has lot of relevance as physicians are lured away with
promises of miracle cures with new theories at the expense of
thousands of dollars and time ( that of patient's too). hahnemann's
methods are direct and specific and involves no speculation.

Please continue this chain of thought.

J.Venkatasubramanian
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Bob&Shannon
wrote:
or figure
a remedy
disease, or
patient"
that you
opinions/observations about
to cure
*during
Homoeopathy and
regarding the
document read or
and/or email
use remains
individual
special, punitive
with the
digest.
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[George Kaplan]

Dear Shannon,

Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been away for a few days.
One should prescribe on the basis of the totality of symptoms of the
disease. A person can have more than one disease at a time. The
constitutional remedy, as I see it, tends to act to support the organism in
health or relative health. It does not address the disease directly as would
a specific homeopathic treatment, but aids the organism in rallying its
forces to promote recuperation. In some cases where the disease is not yet
far advanced enough - in homotoxicology this can be defined as not yet
having crossed the biological "divide" from the deposition to the
impregnation phase of disease development - it can bring about an apparent
cure, which may be lasting or may not. In cases where the disease is more
deeply rooted and it has become independent and self-maintaining, merely
supporting the "constitution" is likely to be insufficient and ineffectual,
for the same reason that dietary changes, vitamins and herbs may be
ineffectual. At this point of disease development, the homeopath would do
better to study the processes of vicariation than to agonise over whether
their patient dreams of mad dogs biting their posterior, or whether they
prefer ketchup to mayonnaise. I have every faith in the constitutional
remedy when it is used appropriately in its correct context, but I feel that
the cult of the constitutional is a serious deficiency in homeopathy. I am
additionally convinced that the claimed miracle effects attributed to
constitutional remedies may be down to a placebo effect in some cases.

Warm regards,
George

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile