Quandary

[Rochelle]

I was in a quandary today with a patient - a teenager with acne on his back. I gave him Sulphur 200 last time (he theorises and studies philosophy) and the only change has been that the acne flares up and then goes down repeatedly which it hadn't done before. When I was reflecting on his case last time while I was typing it up I thought of Verat.Al and on questioning him today I really think it suits him with the M and E's. The only trouble is there are no proving symptoms that I can find anywhere for this Rx to do with acne on the back or anything similar so I chickened out and gave him a dose of Causticum which was actually the top Rx in my rep. My question is would you prescribe on just the M and E's with none of the presenting physicals or even really many of the generals

Regards
Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk

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

[Jean Doherty]

Would Hepar Sulph suit, Best Wishes Jean
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Rochelle,

I think you could, and sometimes it will work out, esp. if the M/E picture
is very clear and very well-matched to the remedy. The odds aren't as good,
but from the way I was taught, if your M/E picture seems undeniably suited,
then go for it even in absence of the supporting picture.

That's my impression; interested to hear others' thoughts!
Shannon
on 7/2/04 4:42 PM, rochelle at rochelle@ntlworld.com wrote:

... My question is would you prescribe

[Rosemary C Hyde PhD]

Hi, Shannon.

I'd be interested to learn your experience when you've prescribed in this way. I've always assumed that if there aren't at least SOME confirming physical symptoms, no matter how enticing the M/Es are, the remedy isn't going to work very well if at all. I've actually seen this happen a couple of times, when the mental/emotional symptoms would make you SWEAR the patient needed a certain remedy, but with no confirmatory physicals -- and the remedy did nothing.

Rosemary

[Shannon Nelson]

Mm, I'm not sure I have done it...
I did say that "the odds aren't so good" if you don't have confirming
material...

But I'm remembering a case we saw in school, where the instructor decided to
give the remedy on basis of a strong and distinctive M/E picture even tho
there was no mention in its materia medica of the patient's physical chief
complaint (skin rash? I can't remember.). I don't think we heard follow-up
on that so I don't know whether the approach worked. But I do remember we
had a lengthy discussion about e.g. the incompleteness of proving and
clinical information, "hierarchy of symptoms", and related issues... Which
lead me to conclude that (again) altho "the odds aren't so good" if your
prescription doesn't clearly cover all of the important features of the
case, still if the "most central" part of the case is met, that may mean
that it will move the rest of the symptoms too.

But it's surely not a situation I'd approach with confidence, to say the
least!

Shannon
on 7/2/04 8:42 PM, Rosemary C Hyde PhD at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com
wrote:

[muthu kumar]

Hering mentions Verat.alb for Acne rosacea/ you can see in Knerr
under Face eruptions acne rosacea- Verat is given prominently. So you
can give this confidently with just mentals matching. There is always
this confusion whether mentals are enough or if there should be any
general etc. In my opinion Mentals are generals and their importance
is because of this. Where mental symptoms are symptoms of mental
disease there they may lose their importance as in this case they are
really "local" to the disease and are not indicative of the patient
as a whole. I have treated many patients with mental indications
alone with very good success though it is but very rare that you do
not see any corroborating symptom apart from the mentals. If you do
not see any other symptom confirming the remedy now probe the past
for past complaints and how they presented; they might carry some of
the remedy's signatures. Since the medicinal provings never were
taken to the extent of bringing out all pathology, the presence or
absence of the same should never be a determinant or deterrent. If it
is available it is good.
Hope this helps.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "rochelle" wrote:
his back. I gave him Sulphur 200 last time (he theorises and studies
philosophy) and the only change has been that the acne flares up and
then goes down repeatedly which it hadn't done before. When I was
reflecting on his case last time while I was typing it up I thought
of Verat.Al and on questioning him today I really think it suits him
with the M and E's. The only trouble is there are no proving symptoms
that I can find anywhere for this Rx to do with acne on the back or
anything similar so I chickened out and gave him a dose of Causticum
which was actually the top Rx in my rep. My question is would you
prescribe on just the M and E's with none of the presenting physicals
or even really many of the generals

[APEX PRECITECH]

That is what is Kent's life's work is about.
But this terrain is to be cautiously crossed. If the
generals correspond (almost in each case they do), you
need to have a differantiating factor. That is always
the pqrs of the diseased patient.

I recently read Vannier's 'homeopathy- human medicine'
There is an interesting explanation- that it is the
patient who differentiates when the disease is the
same. The pqrs is the differentiating factor. David
little also recently referred to kent saying that the
pqrs are the topmost generals.

In your case, if you want to decide on verat alb,
first the thermals should correspond apart from M/E.
Ver a is chilly, sleeps covered. His theorizing apart,
he will be absent minded, naive but intelligent( a
super rubric which I used in my elder son's case, who
is also a verat case, 2 doses of the 30th working for
more than two months doing good work),loquacious,
mild, fearful & timid. Thirst for cold drinks in spite
of being chilly. Scanty discharges.Teeth grinding in
sleep. Some may have stool hard. Tossing sleep.

Regards
venkat
--- rochelle wrote: > I was
in a quandary today with a patient - a
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA ... /xHyolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Careers: Over 50,000 jobs online
Go to: http://yahoo.naukri.com/

[Rochelle]

Thank you everyone for your replies. It appears that most of you would have been as cautious about it as me. Thanks for pointing out that there is acne rosacea in Verat. He is a hot blooded rather than chilly and likes sweet more than sour- as I said the generalities didn't seem to fit. He did and still does enjoy tearing paper but then I asked the question!! He is an intense lad when talking and talks with a passion. He tells me he goes into a depressive state every 2 or 3 months. I am waiting to see one of those. Maybe I should also be looking at Aurum.

Rochelle
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was in a quandary today with a patient - a teenager with acne on his back. I gave him Sulphur 200 last time (he theorises and studies philosophy) and the only change has been that the acne flares up and then goes down repeatedly which it hadn't done before. When I was reflecting on his case last time while I was typing it up I thought of Verat.Al and on questioning him today I really think it suits him with the M and E's. The only trouble is there are no proving symptoms that I can find anywhere for this Rx to do with acne on the back or anything similar so I chickened out and gave him a dose of Causticum which was actually the top Rx in my rep. My question is would you prescribe on just the M and E's with none of the presenting physicals or even really many of the generals

Regards
Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk

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