SIMILIMUM (was Obsessive compulsive disorder)

[dusty1197]

Thanks, Shannon. I've put my responses behind +++ within the text
below:

conclusion
this
all, except

+++ So this is one of those grey areas where we shouldn't allow
ourselves to eliminate the possibility of something that is not
strictly homeopathy as being useful.

immediate
just an
assumptions about

*** There's nothing wrong with that However, it can't be said to
be rooted in homeopathic principle. Maybe it's an assumption that's
worth re-thinking since there are no laws that you can apply to it
to support the assumption, which means that you can't "assume" it's
a correct assumption(?)

contrary

+++ Even if it is, it still cannot be said to qualify as strict
homeopathy. Do we agree on that?
that
cure?

+++ Well, actually, he made it clear that the doctor doing the
prescribing determined that the presenting symptoms were
characteristic of Arn, Nat-s, etc. So the conclusion can only be
that Electricitas was not prescribed homeopathically, begging the
question of why did it work, based upon what principle if not
homeopathic?
+++ Again, we enter the arena of assumption with no basis in fact
and insupportable by what's available. If we're going to assume, I
should think that we should assume, as Paul pointed out in a prior
post, that an experienced practitioner will have the ability to
select the *single* remedy correctly according to the symptoms
presented. Yet that's not what occurred after several tries. So,
according to Paul, this doctor whose work Julian clearly respects,
was inept. Or..... maybe the better reason is that he applied a
different law, and it worked.

evidently
had claimed
treating, before

+++ I think you are onto something important here, Shannon. But
please indulge me while I expound a little on your thought: It's
reasonable to any sentient person that a fall from a tree, as
described, would very likely result in traumas that are consistent
with Arn and Nat-s. Who knows, maybe other "trauma" remedies were
tried as well. But since those two remedies are the only ones that
were cited, I'll not assume anything further. So, basing my
understanding of the reason they were rxd on the likelihood that
they were needed and that the symptoms presented support this, why
did they not cure? You suggest that it could be because the
attention of the VF was preoccupied. My question is: Preoccupied
with what? My answer would be: Another distinct state in co-
existence with the ones for which Arn and Nat-s were given. The
shock from the electricity and the injuries consistent with the fall
occurred in close proximity to one another. The resulting symptoms
apparently represented a no-brainer to any practitioner who knows
automatically which remedies work best for which physical traumas
(i.e. Arn and Nat-s). If all we need in each case for the basis of
cure is the obvious symptoms which are characteristic of the single
remedy, then the remedies used would have cured. Here is what I
suggest: Of the traumas sustained, each represented a *distinct*
state. Now before anyone goes off in a rage, look at the details of
the case. The patient sustained 1) An electrical shock and 2)
Physical traumas consistent with remedies such as Arn and Nat-s.
The traumas were sustained at the same time in direct proximity to
one another. In all likelihood, the electrical shock was the more
traumatic of the insults and resulted in a distinct state which was
stronger, even though the states of Arn and Nat-s were *also*
present (evidenced by the prescriptions given). I have seen
remedies whose action was delayed or interrupted by another distinct
state that is stronger. However, the new state does not eliminate
the one for which the original remedies were given. It co-exists
with it, each responding to its artificial disease (the remedy). A
bruise is a bruise. A whiplash is a whiplash. An electrical shock
is an electrical shock. In the case cited, the effects of the
electrical shock clearly would not respond to Arn or Nat-s even
though they both were rxd on the homeopathic basis of symptom
similarity. Once the distinct state of Elecricitas was removed by
its simillimum (or isopathic remedy, either one), **then** the VF
moved on to address the Arn and Nat-s states. But I don't believe
than any logic can be used to suggest that only one state existed,
since the progress of the case clearly refutes this.

+++ Good discussion. Thanks again, Shannon

Toni

[dusty1197]

Thank you, Joy. I can't say that I've read all of what you've
listed, but it certainly provides a very beneficial selection.

Yet the case presented more than one exciting cause, each distinct
from one another, yet co-existing, and each incapable of responding
to the remedies distinctly characteristic of the others (i.e.
dissimilar dis-eases not able to extinguish one another). The
remedies are artificial diseases and, therefore, are also unable to
extinguish dissimilar diseases, as evidenced by the failure of the
remedies rxd based on symptom similarity to extinguish the
electrical shock, which would -- could -- only respond to the remedy
consistent with its state.

Toni

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, J Lucas wrote:
book entitled
Clarke, Allen
(just
**soley**
how it

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Toni,

on 1/19/05 1:51 PM, dusty1197 at dusty1197@yahoo.com wrote:

Oh, I would *NEVER* say that homeopathy is the only useful modality! But I
do become uncomfortable when the term "homeopathy"--which has a very
specific and well-defined meaning, grey areas notwithstanding--is applied to
things that either have nothing to do with the meaning of the term, or in
some cases are actually contrary to it. Or in other cases simply confuse
people. Isopathy is not homeopathy, tho as Sheri points out, "causation" is
indeed one of the "approved" indications for a remedy, and one could say
that "identity" could put under the "causation" grouping... Personally I
don't like to quibble over fine distinctions *but* I also think it's worth
realizing that the simillimum will *frequently* (usually?) work better than
the isopathic remedy. That has been my understanding.
Nope, in observation, in my impression gathered from what I've read over the
years. But the Organon quotes that Soroush (I think it was Soroush?) put up
seemed relevant, tho not necessarily addressing *quite* the same
situations...
??? Re-thinking on what basis? Are you saying that an isopathic
prescription *would* be expected to do more than reverse the effects of the
specific toxicity? It *might* do so, and in fact knowledge of some of our
remedies have been substantially fleshed out by clinical observation. The
best example I think of is thiosinamin, which until some few years ago had
only a few known indications, primarily "adhesions". But there were a few
cases where the patient was given thiosin as a (supposedly) "local"
prescription to deal with a specific problem, but the remedy instead acted
very deeply, also healing deep and longstanding emotional issues.
Similarities among these cases were investigated, and we now have a much
fuller list of possible indications for thiosin.

But the prescriber did begin by "assuming" that thiosin would deal only with
the adhesions, because he had no reason to expect more. He also began by
giving *one* remedy--thiosin--intending then to follow up with whatever was
needed, but it turned out that nothing else was needed! Hahnemann directs
us to *not* make assumptions about what remedy might be needed next, because
sometimes (often enough) we will be surprised, and something different will
be indicated instead.

If I am treating ragweed allergy by giving ragweed (instead of prescribing
to strengthen the *constitution*), what reason would I have to expect more?
Altho happy accidents always make us happy , it's not really the
principle that we want to plan a practice around, is it? Maybe I'm
misunderstanding you...
Sure. That's why it's called isopathy instead!

No, he didn't say that. He only said that the case had *appeared* to call
for something like nat-s or arn.

(snip a bit)

It *might* in fact have been a homeopathic prescription--we don't know what
symptoms he prescribed for, and we don't know what his familiarity with
Electricitas symptom picture was. It's possible that it *was* an
isopathic/causation-based prescription, that having tried "the obvious" and
seen it fail, he decided to see whether a "causation" approach would work,
and it did.
Or it's possible that he *was* familiar with the picture of
Electricitas--the information I quoted from Murphy also appears in Clarke's
Dictionary, so he might *very* well have been familiar with it. But again,
Electricitas is full symptoms that to me look very like head injury symptoms
(tho interestingly most of these do not appear in Complete rep...).

We don't know the symptoms of the case; we *do* know (at least that's what
Murphy's and Clarke's write-ups say to me) that Electricitas includes
"head-injury-type" symptoms. So this actually might not be the best case
and remedy to use for purposes of your argument... Can we find one where
the remedy that cured, chosen on purely etiological or isopathic basis,
shared *none* of the symptoms of the patient? That would be the more
interesting exploration, IMO.
Well, it didn't happen on the first (or second, third, or ?) tries, but did
occur shortly thereafter, with the prescription of Electricitas. If
Julian's report is accurate (as he generally is!), that remedy *cured* the
head injury symptoms. He made no mention of any other remedy being used
afterwards.

...

I don't see the case for co-existence; see below...
But according to Julian's telling (if I understood right, and if he reported
it right), Electricitas *cured*--*not* Electricitas and then nat-s, or etc.
Sounds to me like *one* state.
But even if another remedy *had* been required, how do we decide whether
the "states" of each remedy were co-existing, or arose sequentially...

A partial simillimum will need to be followed by other remedy(s); other
times one remedy handles the whole thing. But if you give both at once, you
will never know just what *did* happen, and you will lose chances to learn
more about your remedies. E.g. if whoever had the thiosin cases had given
"thiosin for your adhesions and Puls (or whatever) for your mental state" we
would *still* know nothing about the M/E picture of thiosin, and he would
have an exaggerated impression of the role that Puls (or whatever) had
played in the case--when *in fact* no other remedy was needed at all. (To
date of that writing, anyway.) So when she relapsed (and a chronic case
will *usually* need more than one dose, if not more than one remedy), but
this time without adhesions, he would presumably have given Puls again--and
been puzzled about why it didn't seem to do so much. When/how might he have
figured out that the "local" prescription of thiosin. had been the solution
for the whole case???
?? Reportedly Electricitas cured, but nat-s and arn did not; how can we say
that the nat-s or arn states were present? Evidently they weren't!
Evidently what *looked* like nat-s or arn was in fact Electricitas.
One can easily find "symptom similarity" that simply isn't deep enough or
broad enough to do the job. Which is why we can't settle for the top remedy
in repertorizing! We need to find the remedy that suits the *whole* case
(or at least the essential parts of what's being treated, that is).
No... Julian says, "the remedy 'Electricitas' in a higher potency
*resolved* [emphasis mine]" the case. He did NOT say, "after that nat-s
worked"! To my mind this *very* much supports the idea that there was *one*
state to be treated, that the state *appeared* to call for a standard trauma
remedy, but actually required Electricitas.

And again, he the prescriber had given Electricitas, nat-s, and arn all
together, what would we have learned? Nothing about Electricitas, that's
for sure!

Yup, very interesting!
Cheers,
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

But why do you assume that arn and nat-s did anything at all, since they did
not seem to?
Shannon

on 1/19/05 2:19 PM, dusty1197 at dusty1197@yahoo.com wrote:

[Paul Booyse]

Hello Toni,
I don't have Julian's post and did not read it. Could you post me offlist
please?

Paul

[dusty1197]

Shannon, we don't know that Arn and Nat-s did *not* work in the case
Julian cited. And because we can't go back and remove them from the
case we can't see whether without them there would have been
complications from the fall (i.e. delayed effects of whiplash, head
trauma, etc.)

But since you say that Julian's case is not a good example, let me
give you another one: My own! Please understand, however, that to
someone who uses this methodology, Julian's case was adequate in the
information it provided. But for the purposes of finding more level
ground, I'll use an example that I can cite from my own painful
experience:

In my kitchen, I have a V-shaped counter that rests behind my sink.
Above it are two windows at a 90-degree angle to one another. They
have accordian-type blinds on them and a valence. In order to clean
any of that, I have to climb on the sink, navigate over the faucet
and handle and hold myself erect while balancing one leg on the
narrow ledge of counter in front of the sink. When climbing down, I
have to work blindly, as I have to back down and can't see the stool
I've placed on the floor below the cabinet under the sink. One day,
while climbing down, I placed my foot on the edge of the stool and
upended it. Down I went -- HARD -- onto stone tiles.

Obviously I felt bruised and shaken and indeed bruises began to
appear in no time. But I also hit my head and felt dizzy. It was
only one accident, one totality. So, I took only Arn, beginning
with 30C and increasing the potency over the next few days. Yet I
couldn't shake the dizziness that had developed since the fall.
When I looked in my rep, I saw that Arn was listed under vertigo
after head trauma, so I figured that maybe I wasn't giving it enough
time or that I needed to increase the potency, increase the
succussions between doses, decrease the succussions between doses,
increase the size of the dose, decrease the size of the dose, take a
dry dose, discontinue the remedy, etc. I tried everything. I
waited. I watched. But the vertigo was BAD and not getting any
better. The bruises were fine, moving right along, along with the
Arn state (i.e. no longer feeling unable to find a comfortable
position or fearing being bumped, etc.) and after a couple of days I
no longer felt like I'd been run over by a truck.

But the vertigo persisted. Finally, I took Nat-s and, sure enough,
the vertigo resolved by the second day and never returned. My
question is: How do you explain that? If there was only *one*
totality and really only one remedy that covered the entire case
symptomatically -- Arn -- then why didn't it work on the vertigo?
And better yet, why *did* Nat-s work? It was only one fall,
one "totality", and, according to the standards you have cited, one
remedy should have covered all of it and resolved it, the way you
believe is the case with Julian's example. Here's another question:
A totality of what?

Hahnemann states in Aph 7, that we may know a disease only by its
symptoms **when there is no obvious exciting or sustaining cause**.
He does *not* say that the symptoms are the only way to know the
disease, but that we should first try to know it by its exciting
cause (Footnote a), meaning 1) There are times when the symptoms may
not lead us and 2) What's to say that there can't be more than one
exciting cause, resulting in symptoms that are really a totality of
more than one state? Can't we then conclude based on H's own words
that that means more than one state and the resulting totality is a
totality of multiple states? Aph 7 is conditional, and that
condition is **when there is no obvious exciting or sustaining
cause**. Dr. H then goes on to expound on how important the
symptoms are for leading us (but keep in mind that that's only when
the obvious exciting cause is absent), as he states at the very
beginning of the Aph.

I realize that there will be other interpretations of this Aphorism
and any other I may quote, so for the time being, just look at the
case I've given and see if it doesn't make sense that 1) By looking
at the totality of symptoms without taking into consideration
exciting cause, I violated Hahnemann's instructions to FIRST look to
exciting cause. 2) By neglecting to remove one of the exciting
causes -- the head injury -- the state that represented it could not
be extinguished by the dissimilar artificial state of a remedy not
suitable to it, even though the symptom of vertigo is included in
the remedy first used: Arn. 3) The totality of symptoms was
misleading because it was really a totality that combined two
distinct states, therefore, what I was dealing with was actually a
disease totality, not a symptom one.

The obvious need for two different remedies before the case of a
**single** traumatic event involving **two concurrent** states, each
unique to the same state characteristic of its respective remedy,
illustrates that one remedy was insufficient to meet anything other
than its own state, and not the other state. Can you offer another
explanation?

It was a simple case, so let's not try to hide behind the suggestion
that I'm a bad practitioner and therefore could not find the right
remedy

The bruises were evident, the fear of being touched because of them
was evident, the inability to find a comfortable position was
evident, all of the Arn state was evident, so if only one state
existed and Arn was the ONLY remedy that **clearly, rationally, and
homeopathically** repped out to cover it, then why did the
**concurrent** vertigo from the head injury, also symptomatically
evident, persist until Nat-s was given?

What I'm trying to say, and being very wordy in doing so, is that I
needed both Arn **and** Nat-s. And **both** of them would have been
homeopathic, each to its respective state, both states of which co-
existed, each of which was provoked by its own exciting cause.
That's not polypharmacy and it also doesn't violate the Organon's
instructions to give one remedy per state (disease).

So the bottom line is that I don't dispute you in that we need to
give one remedy for the totality and only in so doing are we
practicing homeopathy. What I ask is whether we can observe
totality in a broader sense and why, if the totality involves more
than one exciting cause, it is not considered homeopathic to use
more than one remedy based upon the instructions given in Aph 7 as
per H's words with regard to FIRST removing causa occasionalis?

I look forward to your answers to the above questions.

I appreciate your replies, Shannon.

Toni

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Bob&Shannon
wrote:
since they did
distinct
responding
to
the
remedy
to

[J Lucas]

Arnica didn¹t work because Arnica wasn¹t the simillimum and was prescribed
routinely (as it often is without consideration to actual sx).

You appear to be confusing totality with causation.

There are a number of rx that could have suited the totality of your case
and even if you are confusing causation with sx totality it was a mistake to
limit your choice to just Arnica.

Totality of the case always concerns what needs to be cured and if there is
an obvious causative factor that should be part of the case. It is rare to
have to resort to causation alone though ­ maybe where the prevailing sx are
muddled, confused, unclear, suppressed etc and where the causation is
dominant and high ranking, otherwise, if there is something to be cured
there will always be a totality of sx to choose from.

A totality might well be a culmination of multiple states. It could be
argued that your own foolishness in trying to clean such a hazardous area
should be incorporated into the case.

Why try to re-work the Organon to suit your multiple remedy method? Your
main violation was to decide that there was only one remedy that suited your
case and you couldn¹t understand why it didn¹t work. You didn¹t need Arnica,
it wasn¹t the simillimum, it only partially worked. You appear to have
missed out on some basic homeopathic training.

Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 20/1/05 8:56 pm, dusty1197 at dusty1197@yahoo.com wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[dusty1197]

Thanks, Joy, for your reply. I do understand and admire your
obvious talent. The Arnica state, however, was clearly indicated.
It's not a matter of confusing totality with causation, but rather
including causation with totality, when symptoms are available,
which they were. Arnica did not represent the remedy to which I
limited myself, but rather the remedy that so appropriately matched
the state, and it did indeed remediate the disease with which it was
similar, and only that one.

hazardous area
LOL!! Hmm, how about:
MIND - ACCIDENT-PRONE: ARN. Caps. Lyss. MED. Nat-m. Plut-n. Puls.
Sep. STAPH. Sulph

Sounds like Arn still works. But, no matter. I've enjoyed the
discussion and want to thank you for taking the time to respond.

Regards,
Toni
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, J Lucas wrote:
prescribed
your case
mistake to
there is
rare to
prevailing sx are
is
cured
method? Your
suited your
need Arnica,
have
enough,
one
question:
cause**.
may
one
of
words
is a
when
Aphorism
the
looking
look to
not
not
a
each
other
another
that I
been
co-