Single Remedy prescriptions = Sophomoric ?? (WAS HIV)

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Dr Cotter
You wrote:
"Combination remedies and intermittent dosings were definitely not
homeopathy and like any sophomoric zealot, ....... "
I double checked the meaning of Sophomoric and from
http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/s ... 21721.html got the
following:
"Of or pertaining to a sophomore; resembling a sophomore; hence,
pretentious; inflated in style or manner; as, sophomoric affectation. "

The question that arises, is that why do you feel it is pretentious or
inflated in style to be following Hahnemann?
Hahnemann - the great experimenter - did try all sorts of experiments and he
specifically advises against prescription of various remedies together.
As far as combination remedies are concerned, they remain UNPROVEN and
therefore one cannot apply the Law of Similarity to their selection.

So I need to understand the logic of this method of prescribing and how one
follows one prescription on to the second and third prescription and
importantly what happens to individualisation?

Please assist. Obviously if Hahnemann's techniques are now to be regarded as
out moded, then we need to learn this new technique quickly. Please
therefore explain in greater details and give references.

Are we then to regard all cancer patients as the same? Are all cancers the
same irrespective of pathology and cause?

Rgds
Soroush Ebrahimi

Message: 20
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:33:37 -0800
From: "H.T. Cotter"
Subject: Re: Re: HIV

Hi Jeremy,

Thank you for your quick and informative response. One of my favorite
grandsons is named Jeremy. I noted in your earlier writings on this subject
that you had used a book on homeopathic Aids treatment for guidance, and
that they (or was it another teacher) had recommended that particular
fear-eliminating sequence. I had a best selling book out on homeopathy in
the treatment of AIDS and another on the treatment of cancers (getting dated
now). I treat cancer patients all over the world and around this country
(America).

In the first decade or so of my practice, like many people having converted
to homeopathy, I was a purist. One dose of one remedy per patient. Really
daring to give them repetitive doses. Combination remedies and intermittent
dosings were definitely not homeopathy and like any sophomoric zealot, I was
eager to tell anyone who listened about how homeopathy and its purity had to
be preserved. It wasn't just my practice, it was my philosophy and I was
truly (in my mind) Hahnemann's St. Paul. (Ring a bell?)

When I first met the genius Dr. Roy Curtin, I was appalled that other
doctors on the team were routinely prescribing combinations and
intermittents and (to my chagrin) were getting their patients well rather
quickly. I think that many of the proscriptions from the great Hahnemann
were based upon a somewhat limited technology of the time. Thanks to
geniuses like Drs. Goodheart, Voll, and Curtin, we now have tremendous tools
to see how the patient will react to complex remedies.

In the 19th century the ranks of homeopathy were split between the highs and
the lows. Some insist that not strictly adhering to the great principles
elucidated by our founders will end up in suppressed illness with short term
palliation. I'm glad that we have such a good part of this art that is
stewarded by such wonderful men and women. Likewise, many people have found
they can treat their families symptoms by comparing the remedies to the
disease symptoms and select single remedies, or even buying combinations
with the name of the disease as the only guiding criteria and are freeing
themselves from the obscene cost of modern western medicine. Other
groupings amongst us can be found on those who like to out doctor-talk the
allopaths with erudite strings of Latin verbiage. Hahnemann said that the
provers spoke in the common language, so do our patients and so should we.
But those erudite members can bridge gaps with our allopathic brothers and
sisters who are fond of impressing their audiences. We all have a place in
this. It works on many modalities and many levels.

As to how cancer patients on parallel therapy works, I've often heard
oncological colleagues saying, "Wow, that chemotherapy is finally starting
to work!"

Anyway, enjoyed reading your piece and enjoy the exuberance of so many
people contributing to this list.

Best wishes,

Dr. H. Thomas Cotter (Tom)

[H.T. Cotter]

Dear Dr. Ebrahimi,
I expect that I have either misspoken or you inferred something other than what I intended in my note to Jeremy. I did not refer to the great master Dr. Hahnemann as a sophomoric zealot, but rather to myself as one. A the time I met Dr. Curtin and became acquainted with his evolution of Dr. Rheinhold Voll's work, I'd been practicing homeopathy for only about 10 years and was classically trained and unflinching in my attitude that only my interpretation of the edicts of the great masters was allowable. So my remarks were to attitude not methodology. This is a tendency (the Lycopodium like arrogance) that weakens the professional association of homeopaths and that was why I mentioned it. Besides the duplicity of Gates misdirecting the Rockefeller endowment of $500 million from homeopathy to allopathy, our older brethren were divided into Highs and Lows. Their infighting weakened the overall structure to the point that allopathic dominance ensued in America for nearly a century.
I actually do not regard any set remedy prescription as homeopathic (I.e. the Aconite, Arsenicum, etc. dosing of new patients). However, I no longer feel that I'm capable of, much less licensed to, interpret the great masters intentions and provide criticisms to my homeopathic peers. This was not my problem as a young man. I had the arrogance of youth, coupled with insensitivity to the rights of others to conduct themselves without regard to my approval.
I have reread my note to Jeremy and totally fail to see the basis of your questions, "Are we then to regard all cancer patients as the same? Are all cancers the same irrespective of pathology and cause?" Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out why you would think I had suggested that. I am an American Homeopath and as such I know that I treat patients and not diseases. I specifically said in my note that "...Combination remedies and intermittent dosings were definitely not homeopathy..."
Now, however, as to combinations not being proven and intermittents being a poor way to practice, etc., my intention was to say that there are different levels, skill, techniques, and protocols in practicing homeopathy as well as the less disciplined forms of medicine. Over the decades that I have practiced this medicine I have taught other doctors and lay people how to take the case and deduce the remedy. Usually with my allopathic colleagues it has been necessary to teach them to forget many axioms that they held dear (as having been drilled into them by their professors).
The bottom line being that Hahnemann's greatest axiom was that it is the duty of the physician to help restore his patient to health in the fastest, most gentle and lasting manner. The books of rules that follow, while brilliant, often includes hair-splitting that addresses the refinement of the technique. It is my contention that there is no true conflict between the modern homeopaths and the classical homeopaths as to goal and method. The only difference is to protocol. I further contend that homeopathy is a medical art, based upon scientific principles and not a religion. (The definition of a fanatic is anyone who redoubles their efforts after losing sight of their goals).
The insistence that deviations from or additions to the basic body of knowledge in homeopathy by means not used by Hahnemann or his early generations of pioneers is heretical is what I was trying to demonstrate as class bigotry. My remarks are not against Hahnemann, Herring, Kent, or any of the great masters. I am the publisher of Friends of Hahnemann so I do have the highest regard for him and know we owe him a huge debt for ourselves and for our patients and peers.
However, during Hahnemann's life, there weren't even electric lights, much less electronic computers. And not only has technology since excelled, but also our concepts of basic reality have excelled. It was the discovery of bio-linguistics that has given us a new, extremely valuable tool in evaluating remedies. Had Dr. Hahnemann had these devices and techniques, he would have used them. His objection to combination remedies was that we don't know what reaction they will trigger in the patient. As far as unproven remedies are concerned, many of our great remedies have most of their therapeutic qualities from clinical use, and not from organized provings. Many of the drugs we use today gained entry into our Materia Medica based upon the observations of only one prover and often with a paucity of reliable symptoms to consider.
Meanwhile, due to the discoveries of Drs. Goodheart, Diamond, Voll and Curtain, (among others) we have extremely reliable means of interrogating the patient's body to determine the extent of the change that will be wrought by administering a remedy before we actually administer it. This is genius that in my humble opinion Hahnemann would have applauded and adopted.
As to references that you requested, there are buildings full of books on the new equipment and concepts spawned by these new technologies and ways of thinking that affect the practice of homeopathy. Might I suggest "Power vs. Force" by David Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. It's one of my very favorites. Vibrational Medicine by Richard Gerber, M.D. is widely cited by many as a good introduction to modern homeopathy.
I once had a sales manager who called me all excited one day to say he'd met a doctor who practiced both homeopathy and allopathy. I told him that was like saying he ate both Kosher and non-kosher. I love our art as I expect you do as well. You'll see in my note to Jeremy that I applaud those members of our movement who seek to maintain the purity of Hahnemann's teachings, even though they're sometimes unbridled zealots with narrow interpretations. We needn't be either/or when we can be both/and. My mom taught me during WWII that we can disagree without being disagreeable.
I hope this clarifies any cloudy points raised in my note to Jeremy.
Best wishes,
Tom

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Tom

I much appreciate the time you have taken for this reply.

Firstly, I am not a doctor but a Homoeopath!

By your clarification it seems that I misunderstood what you were stating.
I understood that although at the time you thought single remedy was right,
this was not the view you have held since meeting Dr Curtin. It sounded to
me that you were approving combinations and set protocols for treating
cancers hence my question to you.

Time being at a premium, may I ask you to kindly give a brief summary of the
discoveries of Drs. Goodheart, Diamond, Voll and Curtain.

I hope I have not come across as disagreeable!

Kind regards
Soroush

[Julian Winston]

At 8:20 AM -0800 12/10/04, H.T. Cotter wrote:

[snip]
[snip]

Well... that is the myth. The reality is quite different. The fight
was NOT between high potency prescribers and low potency prescribers,
but rather between those who asked to follow the methodology of
Hahnemann and those who were prescribing totally on pathology without
looking at the totality.
*Generally* those who were trying to do it according to Hahnemann
were using "high potencies." They were the members of the
International Hahnemannian Association-- but some were even aloof
from that organization. In about 1910 there were about 800 homeopaths
like that in the USA. A reading of the IHA Transactions will show
that while *many* of the prescriptions were high potencies, many were
not. The thing that separated them was the use of the methodology to
find the totality and the characteristic symptoms of the case.
The others (the "lows") were not trained in understanding the
methodology, and used homeopathy as allopathy-- these remedies for
that condition. Most of these folks used low potencies because they
were not believers in the dynamic remedy-- it needed to have a
psysiological effect-- therefore a lower potency "with something in
it."

To say the demise was due to in-fighting between the highs and the
lows is to over-simplify the problems that existed within homeopathy.

I'd recommend reading an article in an old AIH journal (and it was in
the Homeopath in the UK as well) by Dr. Dan Cook and Alain Naude that
outlined the whole "real story."

JW

And... PLEASE... when responding to mail do NOT just press "reply"
which attaches the WHOLE of all the other e-mail that were njot
edited. PLEASE edit the replies. The last reply was 19K and included
about four other replies-- all which had already been read at least
three times!

[H.T. Cotter]

Hi Julian,

We don't disagree on most points. The designation of "highs" and "lows" are common in accounting for the philosophical and practice differences and I agree that the schism was more decided between allopathic and homeopathic applications of the remedies. Many allopaths wanted to jump on the band wagon according to Dr. Coulter's wonderful story on same in his "Divided Legacy." I'm well aware of that period and equally aware of the differences between the factions. It was definitely a hitch in the get-along of the AIH in its encounters with the AMA.

The point of my note is that today, you find homeopaths snipping again at each other, each practicing a snobbery or ostentatious rendition of homeopathic erudition rather than encouraging each other. I have seen lists in the past where the exchanges became insulting and rude to the point that I would have taken personal umbrage and demanded satisfaction. In my humble opinion, the older homeopaths who've been through the wars shouldn't' be cutting off the heads of the new to show how tall they are, but rather should be encouraging them to fully absorb the initial layers of prescribing for illnesses which at least gives them an understanding of the remedies. The worthy ones will then seek to work out the interview and repertory finesse that leads to valid constitutional prescribing or proceed in other manners..

Even so, applied at more pedestrian levels, there's still the paucity of danger in prescribing homeopathic remedies even if the similar is aimed at the disease symptoms and might merely palliate rather than cure as a causal exacticum would do. Also, the cost of allopathic care has been obscene. Here in bucolic Bakersfield, California, my late wife and I represented the only homeopathic physicians care for nearly a decade. (Our typical cost of intervening in say an acute asthma attack would be maybe $50, whereas at the local ER it would be $1500). Just the two of us for the whole county. However, I can drive south to the valley in Los Angeles and there's so many housewife's who've taken a six month course and are now "homeopaths" that they have to wear buttons to keep from canvassing each other. Even though many are a bit militant in their defense of themselves and way over the top in aggressively explaining that they're only being assertive, they too have come to love this art and in time will help others.

This sequence of notes befell me when I responded to a request for successful AIDS prescribing. I briefly outlined a protocol I had developed in the early 1980s (that was also in my book "Homeopathy in the Treatment and Prevention of AIDS." Then a young man also responded to the initial request who explained that he used a sequence of high potency remedies to pre-treat patients and according to him had healed an AIDS patient (which his note called his first AIDS patient, turned out to be his only one). It would have been easy for me to have taken a high brow position and pointed out that anyone who recommends a series of any remedies irregardless of taking the case shouldn't call his treatment homeopathic. Instead, I sought to learn of what he had done, why he thought it would work, etc. I regarded it as a friendly exchange.

You note implies that since I used the tags that the industry also used for that era (The "Highs" and the "Lows") that I was saying that was somehow descriptive of how they treated their patients. We do not disagree as to that point in our history, except that you have reserved for yourself the key factors that you believe brought about the American Homeopathic demise. Surely Abraham Flexner's report wouldn't have found fertile ground had the homeopaths not divided themselves.

Making an number of assumptions that you lump together and call "myth" seems very ineloquent of someone so knowledgeable. As for using up too much storage, I've been spoiled by my accounts at MSN and Yahoo, both which give me two gigabytes of email space. However, I will truncate this one in the interest of neatness. Are you an Arsenicum constitution by chance?

Best wishes,

Tom

[Julian Winston]

At 4:32 AM -0800 12/12/04, H.T. Cotter wrote:

yes.
as always.
indeed, the cost is.
The Flexner Report is a very complex item. He DID find a few
homeopathic schools were "up to scratch" but chided them for NOT
doing enough of what they said they should be doing-- after all, if
one of the main tenets in homeopathy is learning about the drugs
through doing provings, why were the schools NOT doing good provings?
By the time the Flexner Report was written, the schools were already
sliding into decay. The number of folks enrolled in homeopathic
schools were dropping, and the schools were closing. Flexner did NOT
close them-- it was happening on their own.
See Dan Cook's summation in my book, or read his whole thing in the
AIH Journal.
It is easier to say "myth" than to spend a lot of bandwith trying to
write it out. People's understanding of what actually happened is
very flawed, and colored by lots of stories.
It has helped at times.... but it's not me.

JW

[Paul Booyse]

Hi Listees,
OK, this is a pet peeve of mine. In fact I get damn annoyed when it
happens. We homeopaths are such know-it-alls, that when someone is in
disagreement with us or when we note a particular personality trait, we
apply a homeopathic label.

She is a pulsatilla (because she is so in need of a relationship) or he is a
lycopodium (because he is a chauvinist) etc. And now Julian gets an
Arsenicum label. The first thing we learn from Hahnemann is to be
unprejudiced observers.

Whatever reasons HT Cotter has for chosing Arsenicum could probably be found
in other remedies as well. The problem is some homeopaths practice this way.
5 minutes into a consultation and the case is sewn up.

But even in this instance if the choice of remedy is correct, this type of
name calling is judgemental. Are we to judge our patients, or heal them.
Should we elevate ourselves above our patients?

Homeopathy is not about labeling. It's about healing and compassion.

Regards,
Paul Booyse

[H.T. Cotter]

Hi Julian,

I have read many accounts, but I'm unfamiliar with your book and I am likewise ignorant of Dan Cook or his exposition on the subject. My paternal grandfather was an American physician who studied and applied homeopathy in his practice before, during, and after the AMA gaining license approval through the state boards following Flexner. He and most of my teachers paint a very different picture than the one Don Cook apparently paints. Homeopathic practices sold for six times as much as an allopathic practice of equal trade income. Insurance policies gave lower premiums to patients of homeopaths.

In 1918 my maternal grandfather died from the great flu epidemic where the allopaths lost so very many of their patients. My sister Betty died in 1935 at age nine of an illness that would have yielded to homeopathy. And many other instances cloud my willingness to be gracious to the forces that took homeopathy out of the medicinal mainstream during this past century. Including the infighting of our professional antecedents. I'm not an Arsenicum or an Argentum nitricum either, so assuming neither of us are Lycopodium, let me thank you for the exchange of views and information.

Best wishes,

Tom
(Dr. H. Thomas Cotter)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Julian Winston]

At 7:35 PM -0800 12/12/04, H.T. Cotter wrote:

Dan Cook's account comes from really reading the journals of the
time, and the letters that appeared therein.
The whole article was in the JAIH in the Autumn 1996 issue, and in
The Homeopath (in the UK) in Winter 1997 no. 4)
I excerpt it in my book (page 226-229) as well as giving a full
except of the Flexner Report (pages 220-221)
He was IN it. Was he reading the journals of the time before? Did he
see how homeopathic education was abandoned by almost all the schools
by 1880? Did he look for the totality? Did he read the Organon?
Generally, yes. But that was no guarantee that those who said they
were homeopaths were doing it to the levels suggested by Hahnemann.
Again, see Dan Cook's article.
Some insurance companies. Most were out of business in the early 1900s.
I cannot be categorized aas to remedy. See my reply to Paul Booyse's post!

JW

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

The rx foer getting the house clean is gerbil gerbillus!
regards
Simon King



"If you want to catch a mouse get a cat. If you want to catch a cat,
pretend you're a mouse" - Molly (the wise cat)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]