Dr.Rozencwajg-
I think I came across this information from Dr.Fortier Bernoville's
writings which are available in English Translations. I do not know
French myself. I think the drainage system is itself from Vannier's
writings. Bernoville quotes Vannier and also Dr.Nebel I think. A
member of the group discussed this privately with me and wrote that
it is Vannier and he had 4 remedies all of which go together as a
whole
1.. Fundamental Remedy - 200 c [or 1M] - disturbance of the whole
function of the patient.
2.. Functional or Drainage Remedy - 30 c 1/day - morning. This
remedy must reflect the disturbance of the function of the organ -
picture.
3.. Lesional Remedy - 6 c 1/day nightly.
This remedy
must reflect the anatomical structural change in the organ - it must
match the functional disturbance of the physical.
4.. Nosode - [of the miasm] 200 c
Browsing the web I found this piece
"
The most complete writings on drainage are available only in French
with the best-known books written jointly by medical doctors G.
Gueniot and C. Deplanque. They believe that the accumulation of
toxins can be a factor in acute and chronic illness, genetic
weaknesses, and chronic disease and create blockages to therapeutic
treatment. "
In theprover.com the following piece is found and may be useful for
you :
A French physician, Leon Vannier, taught the doctrine of "organic
cleansing" being integral to homeopathic treatment as early as 1912.
Studies by Drs. Nebel, Rouy and Tetau confirmed Vannier's view.
The French school of Clinical Homeopathy realized that
industrialization of the modern world brought forth a whole new set
of health problems such as, chronic and environmental diseases that
didn't respond well to Classical Homeopathy. They refined the use of
complex homeopathic remedies that worked on numerous physiological
functions at a time. They also realized the body was accumulating
chemical and metabolic toxins and, being so weakened, needed
assistance in eliminating the contaminants.
In homeopathic drainage, we can claim to have a non-suppressive
cleansing therapy.
Indirect drainage to open up drainage channels are achieved by
specific homeopathic remedies. For example, ADRENALIN stimulates the
adrenals, PHYTOLACCA stimulates the lymph glands, ALLIUM CEPA or
EUPHRASIA stimulates the rhinopharyngeal mucosa.
Direct drainage acts on the natural excretory organs. These remedies
are known for having an affinity for a specific organ.
Liver: CHELIDONIUM, CINCHONA, CONIUM, TARAXACUM, SOLIDAGO, CARDUUS
MAR. SECALE, NUX VOMICA, BRYONIA
Kidney: BERBERIS, FORMICA RUFA; SARSAPARILLA, SOLIDAGO
Skin: CALENDULA, PETROLEUM, FUMARIA, SAPONAIRA, VIOLA TRICOLOR
Lungs: STICTA
Stomach: CONDURANGO, ORNITHOGALLIUM
Pancreas: SENNA
Rectum: RUTA GRAVEOLENS
Uterus: THLASPI BURSA, HELONIAS, SEPIA
Prostate: CHIMAPHALA
Mucous Membranes: HYDRASTIS, LEDUM, EUPHRASIA, SABADILLA, ALLIUM
CEPA, KALIUM IODATUM
Drainage remedies are best given as mother tincture, or low
potencies, such as, 2x, 3x, or 6x, 9x, 12x.
The frequency of dosage is generally three times daily, although
initially doses may be given every hour until symptoms subside. To
maximize results, homaccords, as they are called, are used, which
combine multiple potencies of remedies.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD."
wrote:
Charrette,
them I
it
India
not
used?
though
of
down
slightly
On
be
even
I
[a
once?
representations
on
receive
--
of
Homoeopathy and
regarding
document read
and/or
their use
its
incidental,
change your
single
Service.
French medicines Drainage and Canalization in Homeopathy
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: French medicines Drainage and Canalization in Homeopathy
AAARRRGGGGHHH!!!!!!!!!!! more books to buy..............thanks.....
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Re: French medicines Drainage and Canalization in Homeopathy
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD."
wrote:
buy..............thanks.....
Homeopathy
Bernoville's
know
Vannier's
that
must
French
therapeutic
for
1912.
set
that
of
the
remedies
of
potency
was
potency. I
found
best
low
they
different
only
potency
charge
then
method
[mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
etc
positive
or
to
and
and
rx
Ritalin
be
prescriber?
contained
appears
consequential,
simply
---
Terms
website
or
caused.
Homoeopathy and
regarding
document read
and/or
their use
its
incidental,
caused.
change your
single
Service.
wrote:
buy..............thanks.....
Homeopathy
Bernoville's
know
Vannier's
that
must
French
therapeutic
for
1912.
set
that
of
the
remedies
of
potency
was
potency. I
found
best
low
they
different
only
potency
charge
then
method
[mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
etc
positive
or
to
and
and
rx
Ritalin
be
prescriber?
contained
appears
consequential,
simply
---
Terms
website
or
caused.
Homoeopathy and
regarding
document read
and/or
their use
its
incidental,
caused.
change your
single
Service.
Re: French medicines Drainage and Canalization in Homeopathy
Sorry for the "empty" post---I included a link for this, but it was bounced,
even though the message was posted. Printing with permission from
www.pets4homeopathy.com
More toward the drainage issue:
Successful Use of Homeopathy in Modern Disease Situations
"The Evolution of the Treatment of Chronic Diseases with Complexes"
By Luc Chaltin, N.D., D.I., Hom
President of Newton Laboratories and Founder of The American Academy of
Clinical Homeopathy
When Hahneman established the rules of the similimum, meaning the single
remedy to prescribe for all the symptoms of the patient, it was at a time
where the diseases were acute, such as fevers, so that they appeared in a
strongly reacting patient that was fighting an infection such as typhus, or
a viral infection such as the common cold.
The patients that he saw at that time were peasants of the land in the
Germany of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, who lived simple
lives and ate simple diets. They were mostly healthy and strong and rarely
became sick. When they became sick they were affected by acute diseases such
as fever or eczema, or a cold, and presented clear symptoms that were
relatively easy to diagnose.
He encountered some other patients as well and they presented some chronic
diseases that were not easy to diagnose and did not react well to
homeopathy, or, if they improved, the disease reappeared after a while and
the doctor had to start all over again. This frustrated Hahnemann to the
point that he wrote a book about chronic diseases, stating that chronic
diseases were incurable and that they were caused by an inherited
misfunctioning of the metabolism that he called a miasm.
When much later he married a French noble woman and moved to Paris, he
started treating members of the French noble population of Paris whose
diseases were completely different from the simple peasants of Germany.
These people were rich, and ate a rich diet, high in protein, and drank lots
of wine , which caused their liver to be overloaded, or worse, sick with
cirrhosis, a chronic liver disease that causes multiple problems with the
metabolism. Hahnemann, being the trained observer as he was, recognised the
difference in the diseases and rapidly changed his approach in prescribing
for these kinds of patients. He reasoned that these patients were toxic and
needed a detoxifying, or drainer remedy. For that purpose, Hahnemann chose
Sulfur, because, he reasoned, this is the great remover of toxins introduced
by the first miasm, or psora, as explained in his book about the chronic
diseases. He also discovered that these types of patients did not react well
to the single remedy and that he had to prescribe two or more remedies,
given weekly or even daily, because they had multiple symptoms that could
not be covered with the one remedy of the similimum rule.
He worked with this approach for several years before he died in Paris, but
he never published any book or wrote otherwise about it. The only proof of
his change about the approach to the cure of chronic diseases is to find in
his patient's reports that still exist. It is because of the efforts of
Riley, in her excellent book about Hahnemann, A Homeopathic Love Story, that
we know about these facts.
When I came in contact with the French school of homeopathy in 1965, I found
out after some time that there was a remarkable difference in approach
between different French homeopathic doctors. It took me quite some time to
discover that there were two groups of homeopaths. One group had followed up
on the change in prescribing for chronic diseases that Hahnemann had used
during his life in Paris. The other group of French docters were the
followers of Kentism, the classical homeopaths. If you think about it, it is
ironic that the Kentist claimed to be the real followers of Hahnemann, even
when they ignored that Hahnemann had changed his mind about chronic
diseases. If we see today that we have to deal with chronic diseases all of
the time because they far outnumber the acute diseases, it is a pity that
the knowledge of Hahnemann's approach was lost to the classical homeopaths.
The French doctors that followed the Hahnemannian approach, although a
minority in their country, further developed the treatment of chronic
diseases where Hahnemann had been stopped when he died. Soon, these
homeopaths discovered that a better kind of drainer to eliminate toxins
consisted of liver remedies such as Chelidonium, Solidago, Taraxacum, and
Berberis or even polychrests such as Bryonia and Nux vomica. By the
beginning of this century, a group of doctors, lead by the then famous
Doctor Leon Vannier, had evolved so far in curing chronic diseases that they
routinely cured tuberculosis with homeopathy as early as 1912. The book of
Vannier Les Tuberculiniques explains his successful method to treat
tuberculosis, a method that is applicable to all chronic diseases. In his
book he states that: "In order to treat a chronic disease successfully, the
homeopath needs to address all the symptoms, including the underlaying,
hidden symptoms, to be successful." This means that, in the case of a
chronic disease, there is no such remedy as the similimum any more, a fact
that Hahnemann had already established when he practiced in Paris. The
hidden, underlaying symptoms cannot be diagnosed by looking up the symptoms
of the similimum, but are deducted from clinical observations of all the
affected organs and the remedies that are connected to these organs. Vannier
gave about 23 examples of remedies connected in clinical ways to chronic
diseases of organs. I discovered many more by continuing to study this
approach for more than 30 years, since 1965.
Because of the multiple remedies that had to be prescribed in this method,
the patients needed to take several remedies during the day, every day. This
was found to be difficult to follow when they needed to take for instance
one remedy before beakfast, and another before dinner, one more in the
afternoon, and again one before lunch or before retiring. Often patients
forgot to take the remedies, which had to be taken to work and might be
forgotten at home, etc. Due to this concern, some pragmatic French doctors
started prescribing all the remedies in one multiple formula, called a
magistral prescription. It turned out that this system was not only more
practical, but in many cases it worked even better, because of a synergetic
action of the different remedies in the body.
The next step was to prescribe two complexes: a drainer or detoxifier
complex to excrete the toxins and a magistral complex adapted to the disease
of the patient, which brought the number of remedies to take back to two:
one before retiring at night, and one before breakfast in the morning.
Where does this leave the health supplement retailer who desires to increase
the efficasy and sales of homeopathy in his store? Clearly, when dealing
with the vast majority of your customers, it would be wise to recommend
homeopathic formulations that take into account not only the major symptoms,
but also the underlying disease process that brought about that same myriad
of symptoms present in any chronic affliction. In the less frequent
situation where a true acute situation arises, such as an injury, a single
remedy such as Arnica should be sufficient, much as the same way it has been
used for nearly 200 years.
even though the message was posted. Printing with permission from
www.pets4homeopathy.com
More toward the drainage issue:
Successful Use of Homeopathy in Modern Disease Situations
"The Evolution of the Treatment of Chronic Diseases with Complexes"
By Luc Chaltin, N.D., D.I., Hom
President of Newton Laboratories and Founder of The American Academy of
Clinical Homeopathy
When Hahneman established the rules of the similimum, meaning the single
remedy to prescribe for all the symptoms of the patient, it was at a time
where the diseases were acute, such as fevers, so that they appeared in a
strongly reacting patient that was fighting an infection such as typhus, or
a viral infection such as the common cold.
The patients that he saw at that time were peasants of the land in the
Germany of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, who lived simple
lives and ate simple diets. They were mostly healthy and strong and rarely
became sick. When they became sick they were affected by acute diseases such
as fever or eczema, or a cold, and presented clear symptoms that were
relatively easy to diagnose.
He encountered some other patients as well and they presented some chronic
diseases that were not easy to diagnose and did not react well to
homeopathy, or, if they improved, the disease reappeared after a while and
the doctor had to start all over again. This frustrated Hahnemann to the
point that he wrote a book about chronic diseases, stating that chronic
diseases were incurable and that they were caused by an inherited
misfunctioning of the metabolism that he called a miasm.
When much later he married a French noble woman and moved to Paris, he
started treating members of the French noble population of Paris whose
diseases were completely different from the simple peasants of Germany.
These people were rich, and ate a rich diet, high in protein, and drank lots
of wine , which caused their liver to be overloaded, or worse, sick with
cirrhosis, a chronic liver disease that causes multiple problems with the
metabolism. Hahnemann, being the trained observer as he was, recognised the
difference in the diseases and rapidly changed his approach in prescribing
for these kinds of patients. He reasoned that these patients were toxic and
needed a detoxifying, or drainer remedy. For that purpose, Hahnemann chose
Sulfur, because, he reasoned, this is the great remover of toxins introduced
by the first miasm, or psora, as explained in his book about the chronic
diseases. He also discovered that these types of patients did not react well
to the single remedy and that he had to prescribe two or more remedies,
given weekly or even daily, because they had multiple symptoms that could
not be covered with the one remedy of the similimum rule.
He worked with this approach for several years before he died in Paris, but
he never published any book or wrote otherwise about it. The only proof of
his change about the approach to the cure of chronic diseases is to find in
his patient's reports that still exist. It is because of the efforts of
Riley, in her excellent book about Hahnemann, A Homeopathic Love Story, that
we know about these facts.
When I came in contact with the French school of homeopathy in 1965, I found
out after some time that there was a remarkable difference in approach
between different French homeopathic doctors. It took me quite some time to
discover that there were two groups of homeopaths. One group had followed up
on the change in prescribing for chronic diseases that Hahnemann had used
during his life in Paris. The other group of French docters were the
followers of Kentism, the classical homeopaths. If you think about it, it is
ironic that the Kentist claimed to be the real followers of Hahnemann, even
when they ignored that Hahnemann had changed his mind about chronic
diseases. If we see today that we have to deal with chronic diseases all of
the time because they far outnumber the acute diseases, it is a pity that
the knowledge of Hahnemann's approach was lost to the classical homeopaths.
The French doctors that followed the Hahnemannian approach, although a
minority in their country, further developed the treatment of chronic
diseases where Hahnemann had been stopped when he died. Soon, these
homeopaths discovered that a better kind of drainer to eliminate toxins
consisted of liver remedies such as Chelidonium, Solidago, Taraxacum, and
Berberis or even polychrests such as Bryonia and Nux vomica. By the
beginning of this century, a group of doctors, lead by the then famous
Doctor Leon Vannier, had evolved so far in curing chronic diseases that they
routinely cured tuberculosis with homeopathy as early as 1912. The book of
Vannier Les Tuberculiniques explains his successful method to treat
tuberculosis, a method that is applicable to all chronic diseases. In his
book he states that: "In order to treat a chronic disease successfully, the
homeopath needs to address all the symptoms, including the underlaying,
hidden symptoms, to be successful." This means that, in the case of a
chronic disease, there is no such remedy as the similimum any more, a fact
that Hahnemann had already established when he practiced in Paris. The
hidden, underlaying symptoms cannot be diagnosed by looking up the symptoms
of the similimum, but are deducted from clinical observations of all the
affected organs and the remedies that are connected to these organs. Vannier
gave about 23 examples of remedies connected in clinical ways to chronic
diseases of organs. I discovered many more by continuing to study this
approach for more than 30 years, since 1965.
Because of the multiple remedies that had to be prescribed in this method,
the patients needed to take several remedies during the day, every day. This
was found to be difficult to follow when they needed to take for instance
one remedy before beakfast, and another before dinner, one more in the
afternoon, and again one before lunch or before retiring. Often patients
forgot to take the remedies, which had to be taken to work and might be
forgotten at home, etc. Due to this concern, some pragmatic French doctors
started prescribing all the remedies in one multiple formula, called a
magistral prescription. It turned out that this system was not only more
practical, but in many cases it worked even better, because of a synergetic
action of the different remedies in the body.
The next step was to prescribe two complexes: a drainer or detoxifier
complex to excrete the toxins and a magistral complex adapted to the disease
of the patient, which brought the number of remedies to take back to two:
one before retiring at night, and one before breakfast in the morning.
Where does this leave the health supplement retailer who desires to increase
the efficasy and sales of homeopathy in his store? Clearly, when dealing
with the vast majority of your customers, it would be wise to recommend
homeopathic formulations that take into account not only the major symptoms,
but also the underlying disease process that brought about that same myriad
of symptoms present in any chronic affliction. In the less frequent
situation where a true acute situation arises, such as an injury, a single
remedy such as Arnica should be sufficient, much as the same way it has been
used for nearly 200 years.
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: French medicines Drainage and Canalization in Homeopathy
Barb Heck posted:
He reasoned that these patients were
It is a fact that it is not easy to find one simillimum in complex cases,
but so say it could not be covered by one remedy is in contradiction to what
Hahnemann states in Aph 42;
"Nature herself permits, as has been stated, in some cases, the simultaneous
occurrence of two (indeed, of three) natural disease in one and the same
body. This complication, however, it must be remarked, happens only in the
case of two dissimilar disease, which according to the eternal laws of
nature do not remove, do not annihilate and cannot cure one another, but, as
it seems, both (or all three) remain, as it were, separate in the organism,
and each takes possession of the parts and systems peculiarly appropriate to
it, which, on account of the want of resemblance of these maladies to each
other, can very well happen without disparagement to the unity of life".
More active disease at the same time form one complex disease, because there
is a unity, which can't be separated in parts.
For practical reasons we may do so, but that doesn't make it the truth.
When we separate the active symptoms in groups based on the main miasms, we
may find two or thee remedies and give them in alternation. But when use the
in between miasm as well, we know that remedies represent mixed miasms, and
all the different looking expression, in reality come from the same
underlying disturbance.
This doesn't mean this remedy is the true constitutional remedy, based on
the whole individual, but it is the remedy that covers the current disease
as a whole.
Vanniers model is similar to the model of Eizayaga, which both are based on
Hahnemann's CD.
Those models suggest to look at all presenting symptoms in a certain manner,
and the remedies, most of the time are polychrests.
But the problem with partial similimums is, that the present symptoms that
are not covered by this remedy, must be patched with other remedies. Most of
the 2 or 3 remedies must be alternated this way.
Most of the time an antipsoric remedy is prescribed, based on the individual
symptoms of the person. It is no big surprise that remaining non-individual
symptoms must be taken care of by the corresponding nosodes.
The simillimum for the present situation however, would take care of the
present individual & corresponding disease symptoms.
Both methods, can be successful and have there value, but the anti-psoric
remedy, also based on the type of the patient in Eizayaga model, isn't by
definition, the simillimum or the "Well selected remedy".
For the prescription of the simillimum, beside the individual symptom
similarity the underlying one active(mixed) miasm also must match.
Kind regards, Piet
He reasoned that these patients were
It is a fact that it is not easy to find one simillimum in complex cases,
but so say it could not be covered by one remedy is in contradiction to what
Hahnemann states in Aph 42;
"Nature herself permits, as has been stated, in some cases, the simultaneous
occurrence of two (indeed, of three) natural disease in one and the same
body. This complication, however, it must be remarked, happens only in the
case of two dissimilar disease, which according to the eternal laws of
nature do not remove, do not annihilate and cannot cure one another, but, as
it seems, both (or all three) remain, as it were, separate in the organism,
and each takes possession of the parts and systems peculiarly appropriate to
it, which, on account of the want of resemblance of these maladies to each
other, can very well happen without disparagement to the unity of life".
More active disease at the same time form one complex disease, because there
is a unity, which can't be separated in parts.
For practical reasons we may do so, but that doesn't make it the truth.
When we separate the active symptoms in groups based on the main miasms, we
may find two or thee remedies and give them in alternation. But when use the
in between miasm as well, we know that remedies represent mixed miasms, and
all the different looking expression, in reality come from the same
underlying disturbance.
This doesn't mean this remedy is the true constitutional remedy, based on
the whole individual, but it is the remedy that covers the current disease
as a whole.
Vanniers model is similar to the model of Eizayaga, which both are based on
Hahnemann's CD.
Those models suggest to look at all presenting symptoms in a certain manner,
and the remedies, most of the time are polychrests.
But the problem with partial similimums is, that the present symptoms that
are not covered by this remedy, must be patched with other remedies. Most of
the 2 or 3 remedies must be alternated this way.
Most of the time an antipsoric remedy is prescribed, based on the individual
symptoms of the person. It is no big surprise that remaining non-individual
symptoms must be taken care of by the corresponding nosodes.
The simillimum for the present situation however, would take care of the
present individual & corresponding disease symptoms.
Both methods, can be successful and have there value, but the anti-psoric
remedy, also based on the type of the patient in Eizayaga model, isn't by
definition, the simillimum or the "Well selected remedy".
For the prescription of the simillimum, beside the individual symptom
similarity the underlying one active(mixed) miasm also must match.
Kind regards, Piet
-
Jeremy Crowley
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 10:00 pm
French medicines Drainage and Canalization in Homeopathy
In a message dated 25/06/05 09:33:10 GMT Daylight Time,
minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
I find most of the lists and symptoms given for the "drainage
remedies" quite limited but one can expand the possibility with a little
skillful repertory work and reference to the materia medica. For example,
there are more remedies that can target the lungs then Sticta and may suit
the patient better. If one uses the location, sensations, modification and
the concomitants of the targeted location, organ or system the remedy can
be individualized more carefully to the patient.
I find it works the other way too
I had a patient with eczema, with a history of Cardiac symptoms(now gone),
who's father had H/O Heart atacks. He seemed to be a clear Nux Vom Case, but I
was concerned about his heart so I muscle tested him (sorry Joy) for Nux 30
and Crataegus 3x and cactus 3x IIRC. He tested positive for Nux, but much more
so for crataegus 3X. I tested a few other potencies, but these seemed the
best.
I have him Crat 3x tds for 2 weeks, Single dose of Nux 30 followed by Crat
3x. with instructions to ring on any changes.
His eczema cleared up before he got to the Nux and he felt generaly more
chilled!
I checked loads of MM but only Anschutz? 'Old new and forgotten remedies'
gave any clues. There is much more information here on crataegus provings than
any other MM I have seen. It mentions Nux like emotional symptoms being
Cured (with the tincture IIRC) and Eruptions matching his eczema apearing on
people who had taken high material doses.
So it seems I had inadvertantly stumbled on his constitutional remedy.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
I find most of the lists and symptoms given for the "drainage
remedies" quite limited but one can expand the possibility with a little
skillful repertory work and reference to the materia medica. For example,
there are more remedies that can target the lungs then Sticta and may suit
the patient better. If one uses the location, sensations, modification and
the concomitants of the targeted location, organ or system the remedy can
be individualized more carefully to the patient.
I find it works the other way too
I had a patient with eczema, with a history of Cardiac symptoms(now gone),
who's father had H/O Heart atacks. He seemed to be a clear Nux Vom Case, but I
was concerned about his heart so I muscle tested him (sorry Joy) for Nux 30
and Crataegus 3x and cactus 3x IIRC. He tested positive for Nux, but much more
so for crataegus 3X. I tested a few other potencies, but these seemed the
best.
I have him Crat 3x tds for 2 weeks, Single dose of Nux 30 followed by Crat
3x. with instructions to ring on any changes.
His eczema cleared up before he got to the Nux and he felt generaly more
chilled!
I checked loads of MM but only Anschutz? 'Old new and forgotten remedies'
gave any clues. There is much more information here on crataegus provings than
any other MM I have seen. It mentions Nux like emotional symptoms being
Cured (with the tincture IIRC) and Eruptions matching his eczema apearing on
people who had taken high material doses.
So it seems I had inadvertantly stumbled on his constitutional remedy.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]