Stroke

[Witold Tomasik]

In that tape they wanted pts to destroy their
symptoms-and she couldn't do it to these creatures.
Stroke is difficult to treat and with my experience I
would never take such case but she is actually a
friend and a neighbor and wouldn't probably consider
homeopathy if not for me.
Hahnemann in Organon talks about the single low
potency dose that could bring about a cure - and I'm
thinking about higher potencies!
So maybe this guy you were treating was cured with
these 200c??? I understood right-although
thinkingabout it I see that many people really like
their symptoms-I believe they THINK they have no other
choice, it could always be worse. They probablyy do
not know homeopathy.
Best,
Anna
--- tanya wrote:
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[Witold Tomasik]

I'm not sure I got it right.
Prescribers themselves took the remedy?
But they wouldn't have sx to aggravate.

And remedies differ too, some are better in higher
potencies (arnica?) and some in lower (minerals?)
Did they try several?

Aggravations are VERY discouraging to the pt-I really
want to avoid them-that's why I use small potencies
and single doses.
Anna
--- Julian Winston wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[Julian Winston]

At 3:56 PM -0800 11/13/03, Witold Tomasik wrote:

This in reply to what I said:
Maybe I wasn't being clear.
NO. The prescribers did NOT take the remedy.

If you, as a prescriber, have only taken (in YOUR case) remedies up
to a 200, then, IN THIS teacher's opinion, you would probably not be
willing to try above a 200 in a case (OF SOMEONE ELSE) who came to
you.

You would be more likely to use high potencies IF they were *given to
you IN YOUR CASE* and you found them effective.

Most of the very high potency prescribers I have met (10M and above)
all had taken high potencies or were prescribed high potencies in
their own cases.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

JW

[Witold Tomasik]

Julian-don't worry, you are very clear, I just
comprehend below average. But, actually I know what he
meant, i.e. I think I do: did he imply that a
prescriber himself (or herself) was a case before and
was given a remedy?

If this is still wrong let's just declare my case as
hopeless and move on.
Anna

--- Julian Winston wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[Julian Winston]

At 6:58 AM -0800 11/14/03, Witold Tomasik wrote:

You are hopeless, but I won't let it go!

If you are not a case before you have the remedy, why take a remedy?
(unless you want to do a proving?)

Here is a situation:
Homeopath "A" is just learning about homeopathy. He has little
experience with various potencies. He gets sick. He consults
homeopath "B". Homeopath "B" gives him a remedy in the 30th potency,
which cures.

Homeopath "X" is just learning about homeopathy. He has little
experience with various potencies. He gets sick. He consults
homeopath "Y". Homeopath "Y" gives him a remedy in the 10,000th
potency (10M), which cures.

Homeopath "J" is just learning about homeopathy. He has little
experience with various potencies. He gets sick. He consults
homeopath "K". Homeopath "K" gives him a remedy in the CM (100,000th)
potency, which cures.

As Homeopath "A" develops in his practice, he tends to use potencies
up to 30, and rarely goes higher.

As Homeopath "X" develops in his practice, he tends to use potencies
in the whole range but rarely goes higher than 10M.

As Homeopath "J" develops in his practice, he tends to use potencies
in the whole range, but often goes as high as a CM.

This is summed up by the observation that a practitioner tends to go
as high as they have personally experienced.

Most homeopaths I have met who use very high potencies have,
themselves, taken such high potencies.

JW

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Anna,

Sorry I've been so slow with this, but have only just read this post. Are
you saying that after each dose of causticum she had *worsening* of symptoms
and/or appearance of new symptoms, but after this subsided there was no
improvement? If this is indeed what you are saying, I see no way around the
idea that this is simply the wrong remedy. When you said before that it
"worked", I assumed you meant that it brought about *improvement*. The
"work" of a remedy is *improvement*; aggravation can come either from a
right remedy in overdose (too much of either potency or dose or repetition)
OR from a wrong remedy on an especially sensitive person (or in overdose).

Aggravation followed by return to exactly the same situation, means that the
remedy is irritating the person's system, but without exerting any healing
action. *Maybe* the problem could be potency rather than remedy... Might
be worth trying 6c in water dose, as this lower potency might have both a
broader range of action (might act even if the remedy choice is not exact)
and might have more affinity with tissue damage that may have occurred?

It's an *awfully* frustrating situation when one is "sure" of a remedy and
yet it doesn't work -- but unfortunately, it's not such an uncommon
situation, and *especially* in the early days of learning.

Would you like to put up more of her case and see if folks have other
thoughts?

(If anyone disagrees with my opinion on this, I look forward to hearing!)

Best wishes,
Shannon

on 11/12/03 2:41 PM, Witold Tomasik at anna_tomasik@yahoo.com wrote:

[Witold Tomasik]

Julian: It's clear now not only what he meant but also
that you are quite stubborn/persistent.
Thanks for your patience. (but wasn't I right in a
way: they were patients too! Please, don't answer
that)
Anna

--- Julian Winston wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[Witold Tomasik]

Hello Shannon,
Thanks for your e-mail. It is VERY frustrating esp
that she is a neighbor/friend and doesn't believe in
homeopathy (so I'd like to show.. and show I do

I will write the case very shortly now : ask quest. if
you are interested.
Woman, 12/12/55,
chief complaints: facial paralysis (left), left eye
paralysis of lateral rectii eye muscle,
numbness of the right side of the body, humming noise
in left ear, ataxy
All brought by 2 hemorrhaging strokes, 1st on 8/14/85
(facial paralysis) and 2nd on 12/9/00 (the rest)
Amelioration of these symptoms - actually never,
however she feels better in warm weather, could be
damp,just warm; also in the morning when she is rested
and full of energy to do her exercises
aggravation: again: symptoms do not change but she
feels worse in cold (esp she hates cold wind), in the
evening when she is tired

Not only the above point to caust, but also concomin.
(she's had few urin.t.inf. and sometimes has stress
incontinence;) history (the stroke was preceeded by
grief -buried her favorite cat -and stress (a lot).and
others (like:may cry out of the sudden).

I just talked with her on the phone:
emotionally she feels quite good (she even thinks it
might be better after caust) but her chief complaints
haven't changed (meanwhile she "fought" agglutinated
eyelids in the morning another caustican feature).
If I had repeated higher doses it would have looked
like proving!
Any ideas?
Anna

--- Bob&Shannon wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[Witold Tomasik]

Are

No, she didn't have aggravation-worsening of symptoms.
The sx havent changed at all yet.
New, caustican, sx appeared and disappeared quite
soon.

When you

I never said that it "worked" but "acted".

Might
Frankly, I never thought of going down with potency,
always up. This is interesting-where did you find it?
Or from experience?
YES!!!
Some more info
She is dark-haired, lean. Is afraid of darkness when
alone but it isn't phobia, just dislike.
Sensation: the right,numb, side of the body, feels as
if string was there going from fingers to toes. Right
leg as if stepped on ground through cotton balls.
Right hand doesn't feel touch, when she spreads
fingers it is as if in something very dense.

No pain or anything particular about elimination.
And more caustican picture from history: when she was
coughing she swallowed the sputum, the cough was with sip of water

Childhood dis :chicken pox, few middle ear infections

Menses cease at night, irregular
when she had that stroke she had not only cerebral
hemorrhage but also
*a mense after 2 weeks only
**blood hemorrhage in 2 teeth so they turned dark

The picture seems so clear...
Anna

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Anna,

If she developed new causticum symptoms after the remedy ("dissimilar
aggravation"), not followed by any sign of improvement, I think that can
only mean that the remedy is wrong, no matter how good it looks "on paper".

About the idea of going down in potency, it's partly on basis of experience
-- I have seen over and over that a "close" remedy is more apt to act in
lower potency. Unfortunately I haven't seen that to do much in the
direction of cure for a chronic condition, tho I've sometimes it useful for
either palliation (where I know I'm going to have to find something better,
but it's great to get a break) or for an acute, where a temporary "boost" is
all the body needs anyway, and "close" may be quite good enough. But, it's
not exactly an inspired idea here...

I was taught to use low potencies if there is any "organic change" present,
meaning, any tissue damage (as has no doubt happened from the strokes!). I
don't know how necessary a "rule" this is, but FWIW...

I'm really on-the-run for some days, plus fighting a cold, so I'll be
slow... But here are some more ideas, in case they're any help, and
I'm interested to hear others' thoughts.

A little more below:

on 11/19/03 4:39 PM, Witold Tomasik at anna_tomasik@yahoo.com wrote:
Oops, I missed that. *How* it acted is very important information -- don't
leave us guessing about that, LOL!!

Can you also give information about her mental state, and about her "as a
person"? Have any of those things changed (started, stopped, altered) since
the time of her strokes?

What are the most distinguishing things about her -- e.g. in areas such as
personality, behavior, likes/dislikes/sensitivities, how she feels toward
her illnesses, what she wants from life, or needs to be comfortable?

The sensations you mention, I would assume are "common symptoms" of the
damage from the stroke, and so not likely to help with finding the remedy.
(Perhaps this information could be used to prescribe, by someone familiar
with treating pathology rather than "the person"? I'd be interested to
hear!) But any information that is peculiar to *her*, should be useful.

E.g. the menses that stop at night, I *think* is a nice SRP, so it seems
worth looking at these remedies:

FEMALE; MENSES; scanty; night: bov., bros-g., cact.
FEMALE; MENSES; scanty; lying down ceases: cact.
FEMALE; MENSES; intermittent; daytime only: ham.

Tho the rubrics are too small to be considered reliable, they surely seem
worth a look. (Do you know whether it's night per se that makes them stop,
or lying down?)

Best wishes,
Shannon

...