Hi Ardavan,
"healthy" has to go.
We know that many people in the old provings were not
healthy. More than that: Hahnemann proved his anti-miasmatic remedies
on his patients (Hughes argeud this to start out with, and the
casebooks confirm it beyond doubt).
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
Homeopathy
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Homeopathy
OK Luise
How about
'a system of medical practice that treats a set of mental, emotional and physical symptoms of the individual patient by the administration of doses of a remedy that has been shown to be capable of producing a similar set of symptoms in volunteers as those being experienced by patient'.
Regards
Soroush
________________________________
How about
'a system of medical practice that treats a set of mental, emotional and physical symptoms of the individual patient by the administration of doses of a remedy that has been shown to be capable of producing a similar set of symptoms in volunteers as those being experienced by patient'.
Regards
Soroush
________________________________
-
shamaicurrim
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Homeopathy
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:
Luise, you've said a mouthful, only I would change the spelling
to, 'that's the crust of the matter'.....because until we look under
the words to find the 'truth' we won't have a definition. It's like the
need to look from the inside out....Homeopathy brings to the patient a
sense of well being on the physical, emotional, and spiritual levels
through a method of......
we can go on from there...
Shamai
Luise, you've said a mouthful, only I would change the spelling
to, 'that's the crust of the matter'.....because until we look under
the words to find the 'truth' we won't have a definition. It's like the
need to look from the inside out....Homeopathy brings to the patient a
sense of well being on the physical, emotional, and spiritual levels
through a method of......
we can go on from there...
Shamai
Re: Homeopathy
Hi Soroush,
I'd like to suggest the addition of one word .................minimum, as in "the administration of minimum
doses of a remedy........."
Leilanae
I'd like to suggest the addition of one word .................minimum, as in "the administration of minimum
doses of a remedy........."
Leilanae
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Homeopathy
Kent or Clarke tells the story (probably under Nux vomica) of a horse injected, after contracting tetanus, with a massive dose of strychnine in order to kill it "humanely", seen several days later trotting around in perfect health, the strychnine having nicely cured the tetanus homoeopathically.
Doubtless the horse suffered from the strychnine more than it need have; equally doubtless, if the same had occurred in a human, it would have been homoeopathic in result (regardless of the intention). It would have been (obviously) a much higher dose than required -- unsafe, irresponsible, and so on -- but still homoeopathy for all that.
That's homoeopathy by accident, if you like: it was clearly a homoeopathic result.
What is it that makes the result homoeopathic, though? Is it the fact that the horse or the man lives or that his tetanus disappears? No, it is not. It is that the strychnine IS -- as we know -- capable of producing, at least in humans, tetanus symptoms and is administered to a human suffering tetanus. Even if the intent was to kill the poor patient, or the injection occurred by accident, the result is homoeopathic because of that coincidence of pathogenesis and illness.
Homoeopathic method is equally flexible -- and equally particular.
It is not enough that a practitioner's intent be to prescribe a remedy called -- or thought of as, or described as, or defined as -- "homoeopathic".
Homoeopathic method of any stripe both requires and is a necessary result of one thing and one thing only: that the medicine sought be known -- not guessed, surmised, voodooed, or meditated -- to cause a similar kind of derangement from health to the derangement that the patient is experiencing.
Though such pathogenetic derangement may be seen most clearly in those who begin in perfect health, it may still be discerned perfectly adequately in those who begin in imperfect health. Hahnemann's reference to the healthy was not concerned with this. It was concerned with the far more serious mistake of interpreting a substance's pathogenesis, or medicinal properties, from its ability to remove symptoms.
The homoeopathic materia medica is not called a materia medica pura because its medicines' effects have been observed in the healthy, but because the medicines have been observed in their so-called POSITIVE effects.
This means that rather than attempt -- as all fools have done for all time -- to learn the medicinal value of a substance from observing its ability to remove symptoms, we in homoeopathy know its medicinal value wholly and solely on the basis of its ability to derange health: its powers of pathogenesis.
Pathogenetic powers may not be learned by removing symptoms. They are learned by causing them.
Medicinal pathogenesis may be observed both in the sick and in the healthy. The most serious mistake in using observations on the sick is not that the symptoms they end up with may be those they had begun with anyway or would have developed in the course of their natural disease. It is that the disappearance of their symptoms will be interpreted as being of significance in understanding the medicine.
This was Hahnemann's revolution in the practice of medicine; the discovery of the homoeopathic principle was merely the natural result.
The discussion of how to describe what homoeopathy is cannot get anywhere while we overlook that pathogenesis, not curative record, is its very heart. This mistake of overlooking pathogenesis is the very mistake whose rectification by Hahnemann in cutting through the nonsensical explanation of China's power over malaria led to his almost instant clearsighted recognition of the Law of Similars.
Without a knowledge of pathogenesis, there is no homoeopathic method. Without the guide of pathogenetic symptoms, homoeopathic method is not possible. And, whether practised safely or unsafely, well or poorly, responsibly or irresponsibly, homoeopathic method requires absolutely a knowledge of pathogenesis.
Those who would argue that a prescription of Calendula for bleeding wounds or Arnica for bruising without a recognition of its pathogenetic symptoms must somehow be homoeopathic regardless, simply because it works, have missed entirely the difference between a nice result and a homoeopathic approach. Arnica CAN be prescribed using a homoeopathic method that takes account of subjective and objective symptoms of bruising rather than notions of how that bruising occurred. Calendula CAN be prescribed homoeopathically if its symptoms are known. Its prescription on any other basis may be justified by experience, but it cannot possible be justified as homoeopathic. Understand that, and you're home and hosed with your definition.
This understanding is not at all to be undermined by "modern" shortcuts that render a substance's pathogenetic powers irrelevant to a prescription. It simply implies that such prescriptions are on some other basis than the very simple basis of all homoeopathic practice: that the relationship of the substance to the patient be such that its known pathogenesis be as similar as possible to the patient's known symptoms.
Kind regards,
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-- Bertrand Russell
Doubtless the horse suffered from the strychnine more than it need have; equally doubtless, if the same had occurred in a human, it would have been homoeopathic in result (regardless of the intention). It would have been (obviously) a much higher dose than required -- unsafe, irresponsible, and so on -- but still homoeopathy for all that.
That's homoeopathy by accident, if you like: it was clearly a homoeopathic result.
What is it that makes the result homoeopathic, though? Is it the fact that the horse or the man lives or that his tetanus disappears? No, it is not. It is that the strychnine IS -- as we know -- capable of producing, at least in humans, tetanus symptoms and is administered to a human suffering tetanus. Even if the intent was to kill the poor patient, or the injection occurred by accident, the result is homoeopathic because of that coincidence of pathogenesis and illness.
Homoeopathic method is equally flexible -- and equally particular.
It is not enough that a practitioner's intent be to prescribe a remedy called -- or thought of as, or described as, or defined as -- "homoeopathic".
Homoeopathic method of any stripe both requires and is a necessary result of one thing and one thing only: that the medicine sought be known -- not guessed, surmised, voodooed, or meditated -- to cause a similar kind of derangement from health to the derangement that the patient is experiencing.
Though such pathogenetic derangement may be seen most clearly in those who begin in perfect health, it may still be discerned perfectly adequately in those who begin in imperfect health. Hahnemann's reference to the healthy was not concerned with this. It was concerned with the far more serious mistake of interpreting a substance's pathogenesis, or medicinal properties, from its ability to remove symptoms.
The homoeopathic materia medica is not called a materia medica pura because its medicines' effects have been observed in the healthy, but because the medicines have been observed in their so-called POSITIVE effects.
This means that rather than attempt -- as all fools have done for all time -- to learn the medicinal value of a substance from observing its ability to remove symptoms, we in homoeopathy know its medicinal value wholly and solely on the basis of its ability to derange health: its powers of pathogenesis.
Pathogenetic powers may not be learned by removing symptoms. They are learned by causing them.
Medicinal pathogenesis may be observed both in the sick and in the healthy. The most serious mistake in using observations on the sick is not that the symptoms they end up with may be those they had begun with anyway or would have developed in the course of their natural disease. It is that the disappearance of their symptoms will be interpreted as being of significance in understanding the medicine.
This was Hahnemann's revolution in the practice of medicine; the discovery of the homoeopathic principle was merely the natural result.
The discussion of how to describe what homoeopathy is cannot get anywhere while we overlook that pathogenesis, not curative record, is its very heart. This mistake of overlooking pathogenesis is the very mistake whose rectification by Hahnemann in cutting through the nonsensical explanation of China's power over malaria led to his almost instant clearsighted recognition of the Law of Similars.
Without a knowledge of pathogenesis, there is no homoeopathic method. Without the guide of pathogenetic symptoms, homoeopathic method is not possible. And, whether practised safely or unsafely, well or poorly, responsibly or irresponsibly, homoeopathic method requires absolutely a knowledge of pathogenesis.
Those who would argue that a prescription of Calendula for bleeding wounds or Arnica for bruising without a recognition of its pathogenetic symptoms must somehow be homoeopathic regardless, simply because it works, have missed entirely the difference between a nice result and a homoeopathic approach. Arnica CAN be prescribed using a homoeopathic method that takes account of subjective and objective symptoms of bruising rather than notions of how that bruising occurred. Calendula CAN be prescribed homoeopathically if its symptoms are known. Its prescription on any other basis may be justified by experience, but it cannot possible be justified as homoeopathic. Understand that, and you're home and hosed with your definition.
This understanding is not at all to be undermined by "modern" shortcuts that render a substance's pathogenetic powers irrelevant to a prescription. It simply implies that such prescriptions are on some other basis than the very simple basis of all homoeopathic practice: that the relationship of the substance to the patient be such that its known pathogenesis be as similar as possible to the patient's known symptoms.
Kind regards,
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-- Bertrand Russell
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Homeopathy
I SUGGEST:
Homeopathy involves the use of one (usually potentized) remedy,
chosen to best match the emotional, physical and general symptoms of
the patient, as known and documented for that remedy based on
provings in human volunteers, with a view to restoring health and
long-term resistance to recurrence of the problem.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Homeopathy involves the use of one (usually potentized) remedy,
chosen to best match the emotional, physical and general symptoms of
the patient, as known and documented for that remedy based on
provings in human volunteers, with a view to restoring health and
long-term resistance to recurrence of the problem.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Re: Homeopathy
....Homeopathy brings to the patient a
sense of well being on the physical, emotional, and spiritual levels
through a method of......
we can go on from there...
Shamai
*****Hi – could you describe to me what a ‘sense of well-being on a spiritual level’ would be like?
Robyn
sense of well being on the physical, emotional, and spiritual levels
through a method of......
we can go on from there...
Shamai
*****Hi – could you describe to me what a ‘sense of well-being on a spiritual level’ would be like?
Robyn
-
Ardavan Shahrdar
- Moderator
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2000 10:00 pm
Re: Homeopathy
Dear Fran, Soroush, Luise and all,
Using the minute doses and potentized remedies, can not be a part of definition of
homeopathy. These are the properties of one of the tools applied in homeopathy. Even Hahnemann did not use potentized remedies in the beginning years of homeopathy! Homeopathy was introduced by Hahnemann with crude remedies. Potentization and dose adjustment were introduced during the ongoing development of posology used by Hahnemann.
With the examples of homeopathic cure which Hahnemann mentions in the introduction of Organon, it is apparent that he did not even consider the presence of remedies as tools in homeopathic effect. The following paragraph from aphorism 286 is another evidence.
'The dynamic force of mineral magnets, electricity and galvanism act no less powerfully upon our life principle and they are not less homoeopathic than the properly so-called medicines which neutralize disease by taking them through the mouth, or by rubbing them on the skin or by olfaction. There may be diseases, especially diseases of sensibility and irritability, abnormal sensations, and involuntary muscular movements which may be cured by those means. But the more certain way of applying the last two as well as that of the so-called electro-magnetic machine lies still very much in the dark to make homoeopathic use of them. So far both electricity and Galvanism have been used only for palliation to the great damage of the sick. The positive, pure action of both upon the healthy human body have until the present time been but little tested.'
So I beleive that we should omit the type of tool used in homeopathic effect in definition of homeopathy. Maybe in the future, we will see much more effective tools. Who knows?? This change should not change the definition!!
Regarding the use of the words disease, Krankheit, illness, 'dis+ease',.... the example regarding esophageal atresia is clarifying. Consider an infant with esophageal atresia with a fistula to trachea. The infant experiences vomiting after milk, respiratory problem, cyanosis,... This can be considered a disease, illness, 'dis+ease',.... The remedy similar to this picture can be Aethusa (just for example) but no remedy prescribed on the basis of similar symptoms can cure this infant! This is an static lesion. The real dynamic disease has had its effect during organogenesis.
Now, what should we do in a case with several static features? Just take the symptoms? Don't we need to think about the present and past of the patient, do a kind of case analysis (by whatever technique....) and then choose a set of valuable symptoms,....? If we need to do so, this means that the word 'similar' is a not a simple 'similar'! You can use the word 'similar' but 'similar to' what???? You can not simply say, 'similar to disease'.
Regarding the basis of definition, I do not think that anything has changed, according to the principle, since Hahnemann's time. The methods that we consider as 'schools', like Sankaran's Schoelten's,.... are just techniques and not schools. So the definition should be congruent with the succesful results of any of these techniques.
And about the point that Luise has mentioned regrading the healthy provers. I agree with Luise. Maybe Hahnemann wanted to find healthy provers. But as far as we know not all of his provers were healthy.
Regards,
Ardavan
________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access , No Cost.
Using the minute doses and potentized remedies, can not be a part of definition of
homeopathy. These are the properties of one of the tools applied in homeopathy. Even Hahnemann did not use potentized remedies in the beginning years of homeopathy! Homeopathy was introduced by Hahnemann with crude remedies. Potentization and dose adjustment were introduced during the ongoing development of posology used by Hahnemann.
With the examples of homeopathic cure which Hahnemann mentions in the introduction of Organon, it is apparent that he did not even consider the presence of remedies as tools in homeopathic effect. The following paragraph from aphorism 286 is another evidence.
'The dynamic force of mineral magnets, electricity and galvanism act no less powerfully upon our life principle and they are not less homoeopathic than the properly so-called medicines which neutralize disease by taking them through the mouth, or by rubbing them on the skin or by olfaction. There may be diseases, especially diseases of sensibility and irritability, abnormal sensations, and involuntary muscular movements which may be cured by those means. But the more certain way of applying the last two as well as that of the so-called electro-magnetic machine lies still very much in the dark to make homoeopathic use of them. So far both electricity and Galvanism have been used only for palliation to the great damage of the sick. The positive, pure action of both upon the healthy human body have until the present time been but little tested.'
So I beleive that we should omit the type of tool used in homeopathic effect in definition of homeopathy. Maybe in the future, we will see much more effective tools. Who knows?? This change should not change the definition!!
Regarding the use of the words disease, Krankheit, illness, 'dis+ease',.... the example regarding esophageal atresia is clarifying. Consider an infant with esophageal atresia with a fistula to trachea. The infant experiences vomiting after milk, respiratory problem, cyanosis,... This can be considered a disease, illness, 'dis+ease',.... The remedy similar to this picture can be Aethusa (just for example) but no remedy prescribed on the basis of similar symptoms can cure this infant! This is an static lesion. The real dynamic disease has had its effect during organogenesis.
Now, what should we do in a case with several static features? Just take the symptoms? Don't we need to think about the present and past of the patient, do a kind of case analysis (by whatever technique....) and then choose a set of valuable symptoms,....? If we need to do so, this means that the word 'similar' is a not a simple 'similar'! You can use the word 'similar' but 'similar to' what???? You can not simply say, 'similar to disease'.
Regarding the basis of definition, I do not think that anything has changed, according to the principle, since Hahnemann's time. The methods that we consider as 'schools', like Sankaran's Schoelten's,.... are just techniques and not schools. So the definition should be congruent with the succesful results of any of these techniques.
And about the point that Luise has mentioned regrading the healthy provers. I agree with Luise. Maybe Hahnemann wanted to find healthy provers. But as far as we know not all of his provers were healthy.
Regards,
Ardavan
________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access , No Cost.
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
Re: Homeopathy
Hi Ardavan,
The homeopathic concept of "symptom" or "symptom complex" is probably the thing that needs defining. Without clarity here, we run the risk of all thinking of different things when trying to define homeopathy and what the remedies are similar to.
Ardavan Shahrdar wrote:
________________________________
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Information - Education - Treatment)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
The homeopathic concept of "symptom" or "symptom complex" is probably the thing that needs defining. Without clarity here, we run the risk of all thinking of different things when trying to define homeopathy and what the remedies are similar to.
Ardavan Shahrdar wrote:
________________________________
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Information - Education - Treatment)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Homeopathy
Dear Colleagues
I am plsd on two accounts:
1- This process of defining Homoeopathy was quite educational in itself. It was a good reflection on what we actually do.
2- That how quickly we managed to come up with a set of words which defined the foundations of the our practice.
It is in a way like a building. If its foundations are solid it will last.
Most of the comments received are like what the architect would like to have in or on his building to give it serviceability.
So whether one uses mother tinctures or MM potencies, it can be regarded as Homeopathy providing the prescription is based on symptom similarity.
There are many cases of dis-ease where there is a mechanical problem. eg broken bones, or Ardavan's case given below, or when the vessels going in and out of the heart are incorrectly connected. Here the only resolution is through surgery or some kind of manipulation. And when the surgeon picks up his knife, then medicine has been defeated.
It is perhaps worthwhile to take the opportunity to remind ourselves of Aph 3
If the physician clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease (knowledge of disease, indication), if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers), and if he knows how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient, so that the recovery must ensue - to adapt it, as well in respect to the suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of action to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the medicine indicated), as also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and quantity of it required (proper dose), and the proper period for repeating the dose; - if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them, so that the restoration may be permanent, then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art .
Regards
Soroush
________________________________
I am plsd on two accounts:
1- This process of defining Homoeopathy was quite educational in itself. It was a good reflection on what we actually do.
2- That how quickly we managed to come up with a set of words which defined the foundations of the our practice.
It is in a way like a building. If its foundations are solid it will last.
Most of the comments received are like what the architect would like to have in or on his building to give it serviceability.
So whether one uses mother tinctures or MM potencies, it can be regarded as Homeopathy providing the prescription is based on symptom similarity.
There are many cases of dis-ease where there is a mechanical problem. eg broken bones, or Ardavan's case given below, or when the vessels going in and out of the heart are incorrectly connected. Here the only resolution is through surgery or some kind of manipulation. And when the surgeon picks up his knife, then medicine has been defeated.
It is perhaps worthwhile to take the opportunity to remind ourselves of Aph 3
If the physician clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease (knowledge of disease, indication), if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers), and if he knows how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient, so that the recovery must ensue - to adapt it, as well in respect to the suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of action to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the medicine indicated), as also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and quantity of it required (proper dose), and the proper period for repeating the dose; - if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them, so that the restoration may be permanent, then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art .
Regards
Soroush
________________________________