CD - HMN - 8 - A QUESTION

[Farbod Rahnamai]

It is interesting that Hahnemann, the master, had such problems with treating chronic diseases. The question is: do we have such problems? Do we follow up our chronic cases? Or after the first amelioration we say "the patient is cured"?
Regards

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

[andyh]

Farbod Rahnamai wrote:
Dear Farbod,
Thanks for moderating this reading of CD.

I think your question looks at how self-satisfied we are using a system which in general works so much better than most other healing tools.... We assume success too easily. And success (if our goal is "bullseye") can be difficult to gauge without any objective measure, and not necessarily stable. Kent suggested that it takes 2-3 years to cure a chronic case, if my memory serves (where is that quote-perhaps in Kents Philosophy?). And cases are frequently layered and the diligently returning client takes the homeopath on a journey which leads at some point to the uncovering
of an rx which is the true "basement" of the case and truly does the healing work. So the first result is often not the final and most profound result. And as CD posits, the miasm(s) which express in the form of symptom complexes may not succumb to symptomatic rx, but may need a miasmatic idem along the way which may not be obvious but may require inductive reasoning...

Homeopathy is a lot of sleuthing work. It is work which requires untiring collection of data, and study until the piece fits the puzzle. It involves great patience and ability to feel satisfied that the healing of each individual is a worthwhile goal; despite the context of the world as it is.

CD supports the implication of your question, which is that true healing is ongoing and not often arrived at overnight despite outward appearances; for the burden each of us carries is deep and many layered.

Best,
Andy

[J.VENKATASUBRAMANIAN]

Dear All,
How good and great it would be if the more experienced on the list shares
his chronic case from
first to last with all its twists and turns ? And members like me will
doubly be happy if each stage
prescription is explained with reg to miasm also. Being a long drawn out
job, it can be in a many
parts.
Regards
venkat

[Farbod Rahnamai]

Dear Andy

Thanks. I agree with you. It really needs great patience. But I wanted to emphasise on the point that HMN beleived that general homeopathy is not enough.
When I first studied HMN's CD I was confuesd, because I found something different from orthodox homeopathy. When the first time I confronted with HMN's meaning of miasm I was astonished. He never spoke of Idem remedies to cure miasms. I think the best to understand what did he say, is to read it as an unprejudiced observer, as I know nothing from homeopathy.

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

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Farbod,

Could you elaborate what you mean about writings in CD being "different from
orthodox homeopathy"? I agree that when Hahnemann talks about remedies to
address miasms, he draws from a *large* list for each miasm, not merely (or
even mainly) the nosodes! Is that what you referred to, or is there more?

Thanks,
Shannon
on 3/24/04 6:08 AM, Farbod Rahnamai at frahnama@privatemail.me.uk wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Yes, yes, yes!!!
Vive la "long term follow-up"!!!!
One of my past teachers once remarked that a lot of beginning homeopaths
either "retire" from practice -- or simply move -- at about the ten-year
mark, because that's when the easy work (symptom-based, non-miasmatic
remedies can work) is done, and you have to dig into the tough stuff -- the
stuff that drove Hahnemann to write Chronic Diseases (shudder)!

I'm told that a homeopath named Julia Green was/is(?) working in the same
area for 40 years, and has had the opportunity to watch the health of her
patient group improve over that time -- to watch each of her patient
generations to be born healthier than their parents. What a wonderful
thing... (I'm also told that she's been too busy treating people to write
about it, which seems quite a shame!) Does anyone know more, or whether she
has written anything by now?

Are there any folks here who've been in practice longer than ten years, who
could comment on their experiences with patients they've followed for that
time or longer?

Best,
Shannon
on 3/23/04 4:34 PM, andyh@mcn.org at andyh@mcn.org wrote:

[Julian Winston]

At 9:15 AM -0600 3/24/04, Bob&Shannon wrote:
Julia Green did write a number of pieces for the Homeopathic
Recorder, all based upon her experiences. The index to the HR lists
about 80 articles penned by her.
When she died, all her case notes were given to Harris Coulter. In
about 1984 or so, Jacques Imberechts and I spent some time in Harry's
basement going through them.
They were completely useless. Green had taken the time to type up all
her notes, but they consisted of a description of the patient, the
remedy given, and the follow-ups and remedies.
When you hit a clear Pulsatilla, it was obvious WHY she gave the
remedy. But when it wasn't clear and she gave Pulsatilla, you were
left asking "why" and there was no information to tell you. Over 60
years of experience, and nothing to be learned from it by an
outsider. I took a few of them for my collection, and the rest were
tossed out.

Julia Green (you will learn from my book) was born in 1871, graduated
in 1898 from Boston University. She knew Kent. She formed the AFH in
1922. She retired from practice in 1959, turning over her practice to
her protege, Maisimund Panos. She died in 1963.

JW

[Farbod Rahnamai]

Dear Shannon
Let me point out: that he never draw large list of remedies for each miasm. He introduced one remedy (mercurius) as an specific remedy for syphilis miasm. He introduced a remedy (thuja) for Sycosis miasm and in cases of psorosycosis he suggests Nit-ac as an antipsoric! In case of psora he gave us a list of about 48 remedies. In his list of remedies you can't find any nosode.

But the most important part, I think is his view to disease and the meaning of the word miasm. When he talked of miasm he meant contagious infectious disease. It may seem weird. We'd better study it page by page as an unprejudiced reader.
Best

Farbod

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks Farbod,
Yes, I'll keep an open mind and keep reading.
But why is the definition of miasm as "contagious infections disease" weird?
Maybe I'm being dense (again), but what other definition has been used???
(Except we no longer use the word "miasm" to apply to the disease itself,
but rather to effects that are passed on [generationally or thru contact]
*apart from* the active disease itself -- is that the distinction that seems
weird to you?

Just exploring,
Shannon
on 3/25/04 5:11 AM, Farbod Rahnamai at frahnama@privatemail.me.uk wrote:

[Farbod Rahnamai]

Dear Shannon

It is very good if the definition is not weird for you. But comparing Sankaran's view of Miasm is different from Ortega and both are different from Hahnemann. If you firstly work with for example Sankaran's view, understanding HMN's view would be confusing.

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