classical homeopathy

[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

[Julian Winston]

At 9:26 AM -0500 4/11/04, Bob&Shannon wrote:
You prescribe nosodes (accord to Dr. R) based upon the type of
cancer-- schirrinum for hard tumors, carcinosin for soft ones, etc.
I have not read enough of Grimmer to know how he used the Cadminum
salts, but he had great success with them.
There was a good article about this some years ago in the SOH Journal.
Might. Who knows?
I've head of people who have been diagnosed with cancer, cleaned up
their life (in a number of different ways) and then found the cancer
had gone.
Maybe, again. No answers from here (or even speculation).

JW

[Julian Winston]

At 12:28 PM -0400 4/11/04, Ellen Madono wrote:
Yes.
In the model Herscu proposes, any symptom can move outside the circle
and "split off"-- in which case it will NOT respond to a remedy rxd
on totality, but only to a remedy prescribed for IT-- usually a very
small, single place of action remedy.

JW

[Julian Winston]

At 6:18 PM +0000 4/11/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:
you're welcome.
yes. The same NAMES but not necessarily, the same remedies. Even in
the presentation of Cholera he had several remedies (Cuprum, Veratrum
alb, Camphora) which had to be individualized to the progression of
the disease.
That seems to be what he is saying. But the "mutated" disease might
have the same presentation as the original. This happens in the
example I gave of Diphtheria, and happens in the modern epidemics of
influenza. All books I've seen that talk about treating an "epidemic"
disease talk about searching out the simillimum.
In the first epidemic of Yellow Fever, the homeopaths who were
present said (sorry I don't have the exact quote) "since we never
treated this before we just looked for the most similar in the
Materia Medica." When the books were then written, it was found that
there were several remedies useful for Yellow Fever-- depending on
the characteristics of the case.
Not quite. The choice of the remedy is NOT automatic. It is not a
question of DX= rem.
It is a question of DX+ sx1=rem1 Dx + sx2=rem2, etc. In this case,
DX +sx2= remedy1 will not work.
We ARE talking about the individual patient who is responding in
their own way to an epidemic disease. Such disease overwhelm the
person and have *generally* a similar presentation in ALL people, yet
there is often enough individuality to select the best remedy for the
case.
Copper was selected based upon the presentation of extreme craping in
the extremities. IF those symptoms are present, then copper is the
remedy. If there is extreme coldness then Camph. is the remedy. If
there is extreme purging, then Veratrum is the remedy.
Again the Disease + characterizing symptom = remedy choice.
Yes.
Yes. The disease label **if understood from the homeopathic
perspective** could be a guide.
Even today, when faced with a patient with a diagnosis of "pneumonia"
the competent homeopath MIGHT FIRST go through the list of remedies
known to have "pneumonia like symptoms" in their pathogenesis to see
if, in THIS case, any of those symptoms match the presentation. A
competent homeopath might make the selection without even looking at
a Materia Medica. IF HOWEVER the symptoms do not match any that are
known, then the case must be taken to determine *in this case of
pneumonia, in this patient* which symptoms are characteristic of the
case.
One of the reasons that homeopathy failed in the USA was that the
METHOD ceased to be taught, and in its place, only Therapeutics were
offered. So Old Doctor Menninger, when studying at Chicago in 1885-89
was taught that "Phosphorus is for pneumonia." With this type of
"this for that" instruction the whole idea of prescribing on the
characteristic symptoms (or the patient/disease) fell by the wayside.
Failure is sure to follow.
Even in the Flu epidemic of 1918, the majority of the patients
received Gelsemium, but there were some who got Bryonia-- it depended
NOT upon the label of "flu" but the presentation of the case of flu
as seen in the patient.

JW

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Allen,
Maybe that was an unconscious expression of the fact that I am not proud to
be English or an Earthling!

Warmly (no sarcasm intended...)
anna

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Allen Coniglio]

I can understand the Earthling part but, the English aren't so bad. Well,
not all of them. They're usually good spellers. That's pretty good. I don't
like the food, though - except for the chips. Well, enough of this
chattiness. I have to get back to my ship. See you.

Allen

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Mr Winston,
Fair enough. But is it not possible for the "simillimum" to be general to a
majority of the sufferers? If it is the same disease, with more or less
similar expression. Hahnemann wrote newspaper articles on Cholera, for
instance, wanting to make public the choice of remedies that he had seen
would help. How could he do this, and yet observe the individual minutiae of
each personal case? Further, he used remedies prophylactically a good deal
in epidemic situations, based on observations that people who had had
Belladonna (for some other complaint) tended not to catch the epidemic
disease. So, if there were no symptoms to go by, how could he take the
individual case?
But Hahnemann used the same remedy a lot of the time and got the results.
Oh? It didn't fail because of homeopaths all gutting one another?
OK, but you are saying here that 2 remedies only between them covered the
whole thing. This is not very individualised - surely if every patient had
to be taken purely as an individual, looking at mentals, etc - "treat the
person, not the disease" - you would have thousands of different remedies
involved here?

Warmly,
Anna

P.S: I note that in treatment of cholera Hahnemann recommended (both
prophylactically and retrospectively) pure undiluted spirit of camphor. Is
that homeopathy??

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Shannon Nelson]

Oh my, please let's leave the past behind us.
Cheers,
Shannon
on 4/11/04 4:22 PM, Sue Boyle at saboyle@earthlink.net wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Julian,

on 4/12/04 5:14 AM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

Wow! Does it say all that in the Bible? Or where does the idea come from?

Always Learning!
Shannon

[Julian Winston]

At 6:47 PM -0500 4/11/04, Bob&Shannon wrote:
I knew about the idea of Columbus and the sheep. So I went to my
reference-- the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
It does not say it like that in the Bible, but the old descriptons of
Leprosy are NOT the same descriptions as the disease today.

JW