Homeopathic agg

[VR VR]

On the other hand in aphorism 285 (6th organon) Hahnemann talks about rubbing in externally on the back, arms and extremities "the same medicine he gives internally and which showed itself curatively." I haven't heard of anyone who rubs in remedies but am starting to check out the method. Hahnemann goes on to say in the same aphorism "he must avoid parts subject to pain or spasm or skin eruption".
Regards,
Vera

Finrod wrote:
Seasonal Greetings!

It would be interesting to see when Hn actually wrote the bits about
applying camphor on to the skin.
In general in the Organon '6' he advises against skin applications when an
internal remedy has been given. So could one of the historians advise the
date of this Lesser wring pls.
Rgds
Soroush

[Jennifer Ruby]

I've done this with Thios. taking it internally as well as using externally.
It really healed some adhesions up fast!
It seems I remember that the Sanus remedies are recommended to be rubbed in
at elbows ect...
Once, a man with bacterial meningitis, who had had a cluster headache of
about 10 months duration that was about enough to make him want to die, was
given a nosode of high potency internally, then a dose of the same in DMSO
on exact the same spot that the nerve was pulsing the headache.... it
resolved immediately, almost instantly, and headache was gone for the first
time in almost a year. It remained gone. He was able to resume work, which
was a huge relief to both himself and his family.

Health, Hope, Joy & Healing :
May you Prosper, even as your Soul Prospers 3John 2

Jennifer Ruby

Email advice is not a substitute for medical treatment.

http://www.rubysemporium.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SymphonicHealth
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Therapeutic-Laser_Therapy
http://www.lazrpulsr.com
______________________________________________
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Nader Moradi]

Dear Soroush,

The Date at the end of Article is Coethen, 10th September, 1831.

IMHO, Here Hahnemann has used it as an antiseptic!.

Rgds,
Nader

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Perhaps - but also we know that camphor strongly antidotes most remedies
too!

Rgds
Soroush

[Nader Moradi]

Dear David,

Would you please tell us what is the difference between Chronic miasms and
Never-Been Well-Since
Syndrome after Acute Miasms ?

Rgds,
Nader
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some persons never do recover from acute infections. These are called
never-well-since the acute miasma syndromes. They may have never been well
since an acute miasma like mumps but the microorganism that causes mumps is
not longer present. This sequel may become part of the over all
constitutional condition due to underlying predispositions that are part of
the chronic state. As I said I see no conflict in all this. Vaccinosis is
an artificial man-made condition from which a person my never been well
since not a natural condition. That this can upset the constitution is well
known.

[doctorleelah2h]

Dear Ellen,
SOmehow this season gets hectic all the time! I was gald to read
David's explanations on this aspect of aggravations.

Actually, yes in some cases I've observed aggravationt to too Low a
dose. I think this is similar to what Hahnemann expereinced which is
why he thought of futhur dilutions and potentization.

My rule of thumb is to take the middle ground first - teh 30C potency
or the Lm1 for a test dose.
Then when I observe the response to this, I know where on the chart of
susceptibility (homeoapthic reactivity) the pateint is. I don't know
if I cna geive you a hard and fast rule follwoing this but here are
some of my observations:
1. When there was not much reaction, I"D think of a higher potency
(200, 1M) or else more frequent repetition of the same potency plussed.
2. When there is excessive physcial aggravation, I'd think of a higher
potency or more often move to an LM from a C.
3. When there was an excessive emotional aggravation, I'd think of
going to a lower potency like 6C plussed frequently or even an LM
infrequently.

I"m simply telling you what I have done in individual situations and
these may not be applicable to every case. Sometimes I wish it was
easier than using intuition, hindsight and common sense.
The only rule is to be vigilant to the response of a well chosen
remedy and watch the case carefully initially (at least over the first
3 mnths). That gives me a clear idea of how to proceed in future and I
rarely have a problem with deciding on the required potency for any
prescription in that case over the next few years.

HOpe this helps,
Leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Ellen Madono" wrote:
being "too low" to aggravations. I was watching frequency of dosing
and doing things like diluting. But, I must be missing something. I
recently had a px with a very bad aggravation and a very low emotional
tolerance for it. I am now looking to organ drainage first and
tonifying the weak organ with herbs. I certainly don't want to repeat
that kind of emotional reaction of aggravating. Lot to learn.
high then it is hard to know what direction you should go in. What is
your rule of thumb?

[doctorleelah2h]

Hi Nader,
David gave you very clear, detailed replies. BUt if, BAsed on your
case I may asnwer the questions:

When I don't see an aggravation to the first dose, I realise that the
potency was the right one, it matched the susceptibility of the
disease expression. I"d usually wai to see how quickly the improvement
started with one dose only. IF it was not fast ewnough, I"D repeat
plussed 4-6 hourly (whatever the potency). IF teh improvemnet was
dramatic, I'd not repeat.

So in this case, your nephew had a high susceptibility and hence a 1M
was completely homeopathic in remedy choice and posology. I'd woudn't
be afraid to repeat if the rate of improvement was slow, becasue it
could only hasten (here 12 hours) with plussed doses. A 200C may also
have been ON reuqiring the same repetition and probably with a longer
resolution period (24 hours).

IF a 30C had been given instead, I may have observed an increased
physical aggravation in terms of increased exudation or pain
initially. Repeated plussed doses whuld ahve helped. BUt he would need
a much longer time to recover with resolution in terms of cough with
exudate.

The clinical hints given with Hepar SUlph in our MAteria MEdica speak
of the same thing.
HOpe this helps,
Leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Nader Moradi" wrote:
Miasms.
angina and
it may be
direct
gave him
within 12
remedy every
any
seen any
I do not
I had
to the
experiences in
DOSE ?
infection which
diseases?
epidemic ones.
'aggravation' of
that a

[David Little]

At 01:38 AM 12/27/2005, you wrote:

Dear Nader,

Let me first explain my methodology in sharing information. The first
thing I do is explain (to the best of my ability) what Hahnemann taught as
he is the Founder. It was he who introduced the terminology and usage of
that terminology within a certain paradigm. Then I may point out where I
have a different view, or occasionally, where I think he was mistaken. So
please keep this in mind when I answer the above question.

1. Hahnemann definition of a "miasma" is an infectious disease caused by
microorganism. He once called them miasmatic animalcule. He stated that
there were three types of miasms; acute, half acute and chronic.

A. Acute miasms. These are self-limiting infections that reach crisis
quickly. He wrote that there are two types of acute miasms, i.e. those
which the patient suffers once in a life time and then gains resistance
(e.g. small pox, whooping cough, mumps, etc.).; and those that one may
suffering many times (e.g cholera). Please refer to aph. 73.

B. Half acute miasms. There are self limiting infection that may take
longer then acute miasms to reach crisis and may not have an eruptive
phase. Hahnemann's example was rabies. This is discussed in the Chronic
Diseases.

In aphorism 77 he makes it clear that non-infectious long term (chronic)
diseases caused by maintaining causes are not true, natural chronic
diseases nor miasms. The examples he gives are exposure to avoidable
negativity; bad diet and drink; intemperance; deprivation; unhealthy living
places; unhealthy homes and work places; lack of exercise and open air;
excessive mental and bodily exertions; constant vexation, etc. He states
that these types of illnesses disappear spontaneously when their is an
improvement in lifestyle provided that the individual is not suffering from
the affects of the chronic miasms. He said that these diseases are pseudo
chronic diseases because they depend on maintaining causes.

C. Chronic miasms. There are life long infections that do not resolve by
themselves. Hahnemann wrote in aphorism 78; "The true, natural chronic
diseases are those that arise from a chronic miasm" which he states are
infectious diseases caused by psora, sycosis and syphilis. These diseases
are "chronic" from the moment of infection. Hahnemann reserved the nature
"chronic miasm" exclusive for these particular states.

So in Hahnemann's terminology being ill because of prolong grief or a
mental trauma is not a chronic miasm. Becoming sick because of bad diet,
poor lifestyle, bad external conditions, intemperance, etc., are not
chronic miasms. The reason for this is that they are not lifelong
infections and hence are not "miasms". They are not caused by a
microorganisms. They are dependant on a maintaining cause. They may be long
lasting and may be considered "chronic diseases" in terms of time but they
are not "chronic miasms" in terms of their nature.

This is what Hahnemann taught and in its own paradigm it is quite
precise. These days some are using the term "chronic miasm" has come to
mean any long lasting chronic state from any cause. This, however, is not
what the Founder taught. So in Hahnemann terminology an acute miasm does
not become a chronic miasm because its basic nature and time and
progression is different. Acute miasms are self limiting in nature although
the patient may never recover completely from the attack and hence is never
well since. Hahnemann (I opine) would say that a patient does not recover
from acute miasms because of the chronic miasms like psora and/or the other
chronic miasms, are present. This means that their constitutional is not
strong enough to recover so they suffer constitutional sequels after the
acute miasms. The poorly treated or untreated acute miasm may activate the
chronic miasms. Psora often flares up after childhood infectious diseases,
etc.

Did Hahnemann stress the chronic miasms, especially psora too much in
these processes? Can untreated or poorly treated acute miasm produce long
lasting chronic diseases without the support of the chronic miasms already
present in the constitution. Can an exposure to strong traumas and long
term maintaining cause produce long lasting chronic state which the patient
never recovers? IMO, what Hahnemann calls "pseudo-chronic diseases" can
produce by maintaining may cause chronic non miasmatic diseases if the
exposure is long enough with or without the presence of a chronic miasms.

For example, if someone stays in a dark, damp basement for a few weeks
or months they may suffer arthritic-like pains but if they move to a nice,
sunny room these symptoms will disappear. If the person stays in the dark
basement for several years they may never recover and hence they may
never-well-since. The same may be said about bad diet. If a person eats
poorly for a year and become sick but then gets good food they will usually
recover. If a child does not get enough vitamins, minerals and proteins in
the first 5 years of life they may be severally damaged for life. So I
think it is really a question of degrees.

A malnourished child is much more susceptible to acute miasms than a
person who is eating well and relatively healthy. An immune system
compromised by chronic miasms is obviously going to have a more difficult
time recovering from an acute miasms and hence such individuals are going
to be much more prone to sequels of a constitutional nature. A child with
acquired psora may never recover from measles and child with inherited TB
miasm may never recovered from mumps, etc. One often sees persons who were
never well since typhoid but they no longer have the typhoid bacteria.

Such a patient is never-well-since typhoid but they don't have
"typhoid" and can't transmit typhoid through their stool, etc. So, yes,
they are suffering long lasting chronic sequels in relationship to time and
the effects of the typhoid has become part of their constitutional
condition. This is the difference between a never-well-since typhoid case
and a chronic miasm like TB miasm. Typhoid in not a chronic miasm by nature
because the infection is self limiting. You either die, recover or are
never-well-since. Is this a perfectly correct hypothesis? Is there room for
corrections and additions? Most probably, yes. I prefer to stay with
Hahnemann definitions of acute and chronic miasms as infectious diseases
but I am willing to make adjustments, point out exceptions or introduce new
categories if necessary.

Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

[VR VR]

Dear David,
There are those who say that people who live in a way that harms them - poor diet, unhealthy lifestyle, etc. - especially those who do things that are bad for them but are unable to stop, smoking, drugs, overeating etc., are showing evidence of miasmatic illness through these bad choices. There is also an attitude that people "attract" harmful situations and people because of miasmatic infection - e.g. self-destructiveness of syphilis.
How do you see this?
Regards,
Vera

David Little wrote:
At 01:38 AM 12/27/2005, you wrote:

Dear Nader,

Let me first explain my methodology in sharing information. The first
thing I do is explain (to the best of my ability) what Hahnemann taught as
he is the Founder. It was he who introduced the terminology and usage of
that terminology within a certain paradigm. Then I may point out where I
have a different view, or occasionally, where I think he was mistaken. So
please keep this in mind when I answer the above question.

1. Hahnemann definition of a "miasma" is an infectious disease caused by
microorganism. He once called them miasmatic animalcule. He stated that
there were three types of miasms; acute, half acute and chronic.

A. Acute miasms. These are self-limiting infections that reach crisis
quickly. He wrote that there are two types of acute miasms, i.e. those
which the patient suffers once in a life time and then gains resistance
(e.g. small pox, whooping cough, mumps, etc.).; and those that one may
suffering many times (e.g cholera). Please refer to aph. 73.

B. Half acute miasms. There are self limiting infection that may take
longer then acute miasms to reach crisis and may not have an eruptive
phase. Hahnemann's example was rabies. This is discussed in the Chronic
Diseases.

In aphorism 77 he makes it clear that non-infectious long term (chronic)
diseases caused by maintaining causes are not true, natural chronic
diseases nor miasms. The examples he gives are exposure to avoidable
negativity; bad diet and drink; intemperance; deprivation; unhealthy living
places; unhealthy homes and work places; lack of exercise and open air;
excessive mental and bodily exertions; constant vexation, etc. He states
that these types of illnesses disappear spontaneously when their is an
improvement in lifestyle provided that the individual is not suffering from
the affects of the chronic miasms. He said that these diseases are pseudo
chronic diseases because they depend on maintaining causes.
(snip)

---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.

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

[David Little]

At 11:29 PM 12/27/2005, you wrote:

Dear Rosemary,

If I have learned anything over the last 30 years it was in the
school of hard knocks. Knowledge does not come easy nor is it something one
can not lose if they become too complacent. As Hippocrates said. Ars Longa
- Vita Brevis. It takes a long time to develop the healing arts but
vitality is limited and life is short. I would suggest we all maintain a
beginner's mind with the advantage of age, get down to work, and pass what
we can on to the next generation! After all, THEY are the carries of the
medicine of the future. That is why I do what I do.

Hahnemann taught that drugs, suppression, maltreatment and unnecessary
surgeries could cause chronic diseases. No, these are not chronic miasms
but he stated they are clearly chronic diseases. The effects can be
lifelong. Iatrogenic diseases often combine with pseudo-chronic diseases
caused by maintaining causes and chronic miasms in the form of complex
diseases. These are some of the most difficult patients to treat.
Drugs are universal. I often hear Westerners speak as if India is all
organic or something! To tell you the truth drugs are EVERYWHERE!
Immunization is also EVERYWHERE. In India most pharmacists sell them
without prescriptions so anyone can get them as they like. Also, most
allopath give as much or more drugs then Western doctors without any
laboratory tests, etc. So the level of allopathic is quite crude in some
places. I have worked in the USA and I think it is just as bad if not worse
in India than the USA. Hahnemann wrote that many drugs abused cases are
incurable!
Drugs produce serious chronic diseases and complications. Most acquired
chronic miasms are suppressed. How many persons come with VD to the
homoeopath first? There are three several levels of approach to drug
complicated cases depending on the situation. Many case are cleared by a
very well selected constitutional simillimum. The constitutional remedy's
action is global in nature and can remove drugs, mias and predisposition.
This works best when the pathology is not severally one-sided and the
constitution can still put out clear general symptoms and has some
vitality. In cases where the suppression of the chronic miasms is a factor
anti-miasmic treatment is often effective. In these cases the
characteristics of the miasms and their suppression control the symptoms.
Some of these cases respond to remedies known for removing suppressions of
particular miasms like Sulphur, Hepar and other sulfates in psora, Thuja
and Nit-ac. in sycosis, the mercury family in syphilis, etc. In others, one
must select a remedy capable of removing suppressions and the symptoms of
the target miasms.

This may be one of the reasons Hahnemann used so much Sulphur at the
start of his chronically drugged, suppressed and maltreated cases. There
are sometimes cases that show the classical characteristics of the nosodes
such as when well selected do not work any longer, or do not work when it
seems they should; frequent changes or alternations in symptoms; fragmented
pictures of several constitutional remedies; or very few symptoms other
than miasmic pathology. Many times the nosodes will remove the state and
move the case forward, bring out the symptoms by removing suppression so a
better remedy can be found or cause previously used remedies to work better.

Other cases are extremely one sided and show the symptoms of the
drugs. This is when the drug-disease becomes the stronger dissimilar
disease and suspends the natural disease it has suppressed, which now
becomes a dormant layer. In such cases, one has to use remedies that are
known for removing such drugs and suppression or clearly has the symptoms.
Some homoeopaths routinely use Nux-v but it is actually most effective in
narcotics, nervines, tonics, anti-acids, digestives, drugs that
constipated, etc. There are many other remedies that can play a role here
depending on symptoms and circumstances.

For example, we have remedies known to treat bromides, mercury,
aluminium, malarial drugs, antibiotics, ergot, narcotics, strychnine, etc.,
scattered throughout our literature. Unfortunately, little is known about
the many of the modern drugs and there are so many! Some experiments have
also used the potentized drug with some reported success. I think we need
more research in all these areas. Iatrogenic diseases are some of the
hardest cases to treat. As Hahnemann said, some cases seem so have been
altered and damage to such a degree, and their life force drained so badly,
they are very hard to cure if not impossible.

As the old homoeopaths used to say, "There are no incurable
diseases-only incurable patients!"
Sincerely, David
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000