Medorrhinum

[J Lucas]

But surely what Dr R was saying was that the reps failed but the MM gave
enough information for the simillimum. This isn't law of signatures it is
good homeopathic practice.

Best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 10/7/04 8:41 PM, hahnemannian2002 at hahnemannian2002@yahoo.com wrote:

Dr.Rozencwajg
I agree with you- There are always instances where the "narrow and
straight" would not be able to help us. There we need to do whatever
is needed to find the remedy. We have used Mother tinctures as Organ
remedies (Burnett's legacy) and nosodes as intercurrents whether they
are symptomatically indicated or not, remedies based just on
causation and nothing else, so why not based on Law of Signatures.
But it is when these are considered superior to other methods and
somehow gain more importance that it is necessary to look at what we
are doing. After all Homeopathy itself is analogy. All our medicines
are prescribed based on how they resemble actual symptoms. So there
are all kinds and degrees of resemblance.Resemblances could be to
Mental symptoms, to organs and seats of action etc. etc.
As I mentioned I have used remedy pictures and Law of signatures
myself. It is to the degree that it is being followed and where.
Thanks for your comments.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[muthu kumar]

Thanks Joy-

I know what good homepathic practice is. If you read Dr.R's posting
more carefully you'd notice that AFTER the patient had improved he
went thru MM to find all the symtoms were covered by the remedy
Rattus N. Once again I have no issue with interpretation if there had
been an attempt to find medicines in the regular way - and in his
case he had already made attempts to do that and came up empty esp.
because Rattus is not widely available in the repertories- ( I have
never used it myself). I do not argue against using MM for finding
the remedies also. Once again repertories are only indexing MM in
different ways to find the right remedy. Prescribing need not be
always based on repertorization. Most of the time nososdes and
intercurrents are not given by repertorization.

The fact that he arrived at the remedy because the patient smelled
like a rat ( and whose demeanour reminded him of a rabbit or a rat)
is how law of signatures if I am right.
Please let me know if I am wrong.

Thanks
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, J Lucas wrote:
gave
it is
they

[J Lucas]

The reps are full of 'odour' sx which are characteristic of the remedy sx
picture. Many also pertain to the original substance of the remedy. So this
is way beyond law of signatures, it is what comes from the provings.

I might do a piece on 'smelly' remedies

Best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 11/7/04 2:09 PM, hahnemannian2002 at hahnemannian2002@yahoo.com wrote:

Thanks Joy-

I know what good homepathic practice is. If you read Dr.R's posting
more carefully you'd notice that AFTER the patient had improved he
went thru MM to find all the symtoms were covered by the remedy
Rattus N. Once again I have no issue with interpretation if there had
been an attempt to find medicines in the regular way - and in his
case he had already made attempts to do that and came up empty esp.
because Rattus is not widely available in the repertories- ( I have
never used it myself). I do not argue against using MM for finding
the remedies also. Once again repertories are only indexing MM in
different ways to find the right remedy. Prescribing need not be
always based on repertorization. Most of the time nososdes and
intercurrents are not given by repertorization.

The fact that he arrived at the remedy because the patient smelled
like a rat ( and whose demeanour reminded him of a rabbit or a rat)
is how law of signatures if I am right.
Please let me know if I am wrong.

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

[VBLUES]

In einer eMail vom 09.07.04 23:53:37 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt
jwinston@actrix.gen.nz:

<< What I was most concerned with was a
generalization that Lachesis is a "female remedy" and, therefore,
with THAT view might not be given to a male where it would be really
useful.
ALL remedies are of possible use in ALL people. Making such
generalizations simply narrows your choices unnecessarily.
13.7.4.
More frequent a "female" remedy than a "male" one. At least, it does have
really important things related with the menstruation, I mean ...
I agree with "everything being possible everywhere" and keep on being
objective to the bitter end, but there are frequencies.
Lachesis and Sepia are clearly more frequent in women than in men. It is a
fact which must be taken into account. They both DO have many hormonal
specifics, so here we are.
Kind regards, Dr.medic.Viorel V. Bucur (www.dr-bucur.com).

[VBLUES]

In einer eMail vom 11.07.04 09:25:15 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt
j.lucas@ntlworld.com:

<< But surely what Dr R was saying was that the reps failed but the MM gave
enough information for the simillimum. This isn't law of signatures it is
good homeopathic practice.
Best, Joy
13.7.4.
This remark looks very important to me, because it hits the nail on the head.
It is exactly what I am trying to explain but some unfortunately seem to
misunderstand. So it is : the Materia medica comes in the first place and
Repertory in the second. The first one MUST be learned (blood, sweet and tears ... )
the second one you have on the table.
Thank you very much, I am very indepted.
Kind regards, Dr. medic. Viorel V. Bucur (www.dr-bucur.com).