classical homeopathy

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Mr Winston,

Thank you for this explanation. You wrote:
I found this interesting piece in Hahnemann. "Some acute epidemic diseases
are particular acute miasms that recur in the same manner and are therefore
known by a traditional name...[i.e. a "disease label"] They are diseases
that recur often in a rather similar way, such as the levantine plague or
asiatic cholera [both "disease labels"], etc..." So, here he is suggesting
that the epidemic diseases may recur as the same disease; and he is using
the same names for them each time.

Then he goes on to say: "Since 1801 physicians have been confusing a kind of
purpura miliaris (roodvonk) that came from the west with scarlet fever, even
though they [the diseases] have quite different signs. Scarlet fever found
its preventative and curative means in Belladonna, while roodvonk found its
preventative and curative means in Aconite. In recent years the two diseases
sometimes seem to have combined themselves into an eruptive fever of its own
kind, for which neither Belladonna nor Aconite alone is exactly
homeopathically fitting [to the disease]." From what I gather from this, he
is saying that unless the disease mutates into a different form, then the
same remedies will always tend to work. So, it seems again that he is
fitting generalised remedies to a disease label, and only altering the
prescription if it is a different disease (or if the disease has been
misdiagnosed).

[Anna]> >Furthermore, Hahnemann says "Thus, in the year 1813, one patient
would be
[JW]>What you are discussing is the treatment of "epidemic disease."

Yes, that is exactly what Hahnemann did, in the quotation I had given. This
depends on being able to identify the disease from certain elements that may
vary slightly from patient to patient. But once that identification is made
and the disease known and "labelled", if we may say, then the choice of
remedy is fairly automatic. So it's not that we are treating the individual
patient, we are treating the disease as variously represented from
individual to individual, using a very narrow band of remedies for the
disease. Likewise, Hahnemann used copper for cholera, which is very
interesting as in mineral therapy this is well known as a traditional cure.
It doesn't seem as though the individual is taken into account here either,
or the "individual epidemic".

I also found that Hahnemann says similar things about the treatment of
chronic disease. "Just so, only upon a far larger scale, it is with the
Psora. This fundamental disease of so many chronic maladies, each of which
seems to be essentially different from the others, but really is not, as may
readily be seen from the agreement of several symptoms common to them which
appear as the disease runs its course, and also from their being healed
through the same remedy."

This seems to tally with Dr Ramakrishnan's method, where he tends to use the
same remedy all the time for a given thing, e.g. Lycopodium for lung cancer
/ Hekla lava and Symphytum for bone cancer / Hydrastis for cancer of the
stomach, pancreas and upper intestinal tract. It also tallies, it seems
(dare I say it???) with the Dr Reckeweg system where certain groups of
remedies are known to address certain diseases and are applied on a general
basis with excellent results.

The question has to be, then, did Hahnemann really "treat the person, not
the disease" as is so often claimed? It seems very clear from much of what
he said that his goal was to identify the disease through the individual,
using certain common hallmarks of that disease as his pointers. Then, based
on experience of which remedy would cure a certain disease, he would
generally resort to that same remedy for all cases of a given disease, only
altering the prescription if he saw that the disease had changed or mutated.
So perhaps according to Hahnemann, the disease label, as understood in terms
of homeopathic cure, is a perfectly valid guide?

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Nanga Pir]

Once upon a time a movie named "The Passion of Christ" was released. It was portrayed that a group of Jews were demanding prosecution of Jesus. It appeared to me silly. Why? Jesus was also a Jew by birth. So it was a family feud. It is similar to present day land dispute between two cousins like Palestanians and Israelis in Middle East. Why someone in Europe or South Asia or somewhere in Indonesia is poking her nose in this dispute? Simliarly Hahnemann was an Allopath by profession. He was not satisfied with his parent prefession. He didnot give birth to any new things. All definitions, nomenclature, etc he inherited from Allopathy though he coined some new terms. His concept of miasma was time bound as at that time European were living very unhyegnic lives. One wonders why they invented colone and other perfumes. It was cold. There was not central heating. They used to bath couple times only in summer unlike present where they do somewhat more often especially French. So they had a
lot of infectious diseases. Hahnemann classified these infectious diseases into three groups like barber itch (what a great discovery - may be barbers were using the same razor for pubic hair and beard). Then syphilis that most people beleive that Jews and Arabs gave this disease to the world since it originated due to human sex with camels. And Hahnemann made it another miasm. Now anything other than these he classified as general itch or psora. Now with Irish invention of soap and American invention of penicillin coupled with petroleum from middle-east to warm water in Europe has modified these infectious diseaes and bathing habits. Those bacteria were bad from Hahnemann point of view but they are good from modern medical point of view. With rising cancer it is not far off in future when drug companies will breed parasites and bacteria to be injected into tumor sites and up the rectal region to eat colon cancer cells. And please give me a break that homopathy is superior - just in
your minds. It is one form of medicine that has been turned into a cult by a few Taliban type fanatics. A silent majority considers it just another form of medicine.
Nanga Pir
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th

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

[Shannon Nelson]

Nanga,

If you find homeopathy so boring, useless and unoriginal, why are you here?

Shannon
on 4/11/04 3:33 AM, Nanga Pir at nangapir@yahoo.com wrote:

[Sue Boyle]

Anna,
I'm very confused. In previous posts "we" meaning homeopaths were idiots who
blindly followed "dogma" and now you use we to include yourself. Can't have
it both ways unless schizophrenia is applicable??

Blessings,
Sue

----------

caused.
digest.

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Sue,

I do apologise for my use of proper english here, if it has confused you.
For future reference, "we know" can mean "one knows" / "people know" / "the
world knows" / "it is common knowledge that", etc. For example, "We" know
that the earth is round. Meaning that everyone knows it. It does not mean
that "we" are astronomers, or that "we" are a group of people who went out
into space and saw the world from a distance. Thus, "we" can demonstrate
that "we" does not always mean "we".

Is this all you can pick at in my argument?

Warmly,
Anna
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Allen Coniglio]

Classification and naming of disease is one of the great things the
allopaths have given to the world, another one being their ability to treat
and manage emergency and surgical situations. Most everything else they have
done, however, has been a failure and, ultimately, damaging to the human
condition. Homeopaths should not be afraid to take the good from every
system as, believe it or not, though homeopathy can manage more disease than
any other medical system on Earth, it cannot manage it all. Anna is
absolutely correct to state that,
This is my not very humble opinion.

Allen

[Allen Coniglio]

This is interesting. If it weren't for all the "Blessings" and the
"Warmly's" at the signatures, I would think there is some kind of
disagreement here.

Just musing . . .

Knowingly,

Allen

[Allen Coniglio]

BTW, Anna - you forgot to capitalize "english". And, "earth".

I hope this has helped.

Your friend,

Allen

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Allen,

Thank you for this comment. I agree, allopathy has its serious (indeed,
terrible and tragic) shortcomings but we should not dismiss all its
contributions, or be afraid to embrace those aspects of it that can
complement, enrich and further homeopathy. Hahnemann wasn't afraid of this,
and made full and extensive use of the knowledge he had gained as a doctor.
But it seems that 200 years later, many homeopaths still have a real complex
about this issue! Perhaps the discomfort about using "disease names" is part
of this.

In the last few days I was reading a very modern, up to date book on
physiology and anatomy from a homeostatic viewpoint. It is incredibly
"holistic" despite being a 100% standard allopathy text, and gets there from
extreme attention to scientific detail. If this kind of theory gains ground
in allopathy, all they are lacking is a "holistic" kind of practice to apply
to the theory. I am sure this is how homeopathy will eventually enter the
mainstream of medicine in the future: thanks in part to the efforts of
homeopaths in keeping it alive and developing it, and thanks also in part to
allopaths for clearing a path where it will fit in. Kent was an allopath,
Burnett, Roberts, Hering, Reckeweg, all the greats. Ramakrishnan and other
leading pioneers today are allopaths by training and have not abandoned the
useful aspects of their training.

Warmly,
Anna
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

[Julian Winston]

At 1:33 AM -0700 4/11/04, Nanga Pir wrote:

[snip]
Camels? Hand me the ladder....

Until recently it was thought that Syphilis was brought back from the
New World by Columbus, since the major outbreaks did not happen until
Columbus returned to Europe. It was also thought that it derived from
sexual contact with SHEEP.

However, the latest ideas are that Syphilis is the same disease as
that described in the Bible as "leprosy"-- which was contagious,
spread by sexual contact, was passed through heredity, and was
treatable with mercuric compounds. This description fits Syphilis
more than it does the modern disease which we call leprosy.
So, as asked by another, what are you doing on this list?

JW