Ancient Wisdom and Acute diseases- the Paradox

[Didi Ananda Rucira]

Dear all,

Here (Kenya / Africa) too we treat plenty of acutes, and in fact, I consider the bulk of our medicine here as "acute" in the sense that these are active / infectious/ diseases. Or if they are suppressed - i somewhat consider them "superfically" suppressed (if I can be liberal in my description) simply because people are not quite so over-allodrugged and the suppressions are usually readily cleared.

I've had some volunteers (esp. those sticking hard to the "I'm a classical prescriber" ego-identity) who've had a hard time adapting to the fact of acutes. However most vols, by time they leave, are "acute converts" and are ready to look upon their Euro-Amer-Aussie practices in a new light.

By the way, anyone want to give a stab at the epidemic rx for "Rift Valley Fever" - its the latest scourge making the rounds among the herders.

"Rift Valley fever (RVF) is an acute, fever-causing viral disease that affects domestic animals (such as cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels) and humans. RVF is most commonly associated with mosquito-borne epidemics during years of unusually heavy rainfall. "

"Humans usually get RVF through bites from infected mosquitoes and possibly other biting insects that have virus-contaminated mouthparts. Humans can also get the disease if they are exposed to the blood, body fluids, or tissues of infected animals. Direct exposure to infected animals can occur during slaughter or through veterinary and obstetric procedures. Infection through aerosol transmission of RVF virus has occurred in the laboratory environment. "

"RVF virus can cause several different disease syndromes. People with RVF typically have either no symptoms or a mild illness associated with fever and liver abnormalities. However, in some patients the illness can progress to hemorrhagic fever (which can lead to shock or hemorrhage), encephalitis (inflammation of the brain, which can lead to headaches, coma, or seizures), or ocular disease (diseases affecting the eye). Patients who become ill usually experience fever, generalized weakness, back pain, dizziness, and extreme weight loss at the onset of the illness. Typically, patients recover within two days to one week after onset of illness. "

but .... but some also die
In Him,
Ananda Rucira
visit: www.abhalight.org
skype: anandarucira
----------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------
"easy access to the world"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

I'm surprised at the idea that people don't know homeopathy treats
acutes.
At the school I went to, the entire first *year* was about acutes--plus
philosophy and etc., but still, the focus was heavily on treating
acutes, mostly in self and family.

The "lay prescriber" home-care books are all about treating acutes in
self and family--Homeopathy In The Home; Everybody's Guide; and bunches
of others.

Our first homeopath used to practically *beg* that we would call him
first regarding acutes, because (as he explained) those could (a) have
an impact on constitutional treatment (b) give him clues about how
constitutional treatment was going, and possibly clues to the remedy
(my infant daughter was his first pt in our family, and she was a tough
nut to crack...) ; and (c) it would be handled quicker and *better*
homeopathically--and *that* turned out to be just beautifully true!

His treatment of her acutes were probably the main reason why:
- we all continued with homeopathy;
- we all continued with him, despite difficulties in finding our
daughter's remedy;
- and very definitely the reason why my (initially skeptical, from an
allopathically dedicated family) husband became a firm convert.
Treating acutes can give such a marvelously *dramatic* proof that
"homeopathy works"!!

So if people are really not undertanding that homeopathy treats acutes
(shaking head in sorrow and disbelief)... wow. We've got some work to
do!!!!!

Shannon

If there is this perception that homeopathy can't treat acutes, then a
few t
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Well, all of this is good of course, and will increase the percentage
of acutes on is able to handle. But personally, from my first year as
a student I was getting some really *nice* results in friends and
families' acutes--some I could not solve, but really *most* of them
went very nicely, as I remember. Of course those were not the
"continuing vomiter or ... shocking dystentery" types!

I think--and the school I went to was structured on the belief
that--solid training in treating *acutes* is a really good introduction
to homeopathy; it's a context for teaching the "bigger picture"--what
you would *not* try to treat and why, etc.--and can give a really
useful set of tools for the long haul.
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Rosemary C Hyde PhD]

Simon's answer was well taken, in my opinion. Also, people (generally in
the US anyway) run first to the drug store or doctor for the allopathic
medicine -- partially I think because it seems easier to take a "cold
medicine" for a cold, an "upset stomach" medicine for an upset stomach,
etc...

Remedies are incredibly effective for acutes once you get the hang of
finding the "SRP" aspect of the acute. Training patients to think in this
way effectively takes some time and energy. When they get it, prescribing
for their acutes becomes easy. When they haven't got it (e.g., "I have a
headache yesterday my stomach was upset. What should I take to get rid of
it?"), you sometimes can't get the necessary information from them,
especially if they're not used to homeopathic questions and thinking, or if
they're feeling really ill. Then, of course, there's the legal aspect -- if
it could possibly be something reportable, you'd better have them on their
way to the ER or doctor while they're taking the remedy! For homeopaths,
learning what acute symptoms are potentially life-threatening is crucial.

Training potential homeopathic patients in how to find the SRPs of acute
ailments, and also giving homeopathic practitioners a LOT more practice and
training in recognizing remedy pictures quickly in acute situations are two
essential changes for encouraging more use of homeopathy in acutes.
Volunteering in or starting a free collaborative homeopathic clinic for
homeless or street people (in most US urban areas) is an outstanding way to
get practice in recognizing both chronic and acute situations rapidly and
treating them. It's often very helpful to the people you're serving, who
are generally totally untreated medically. And it's an excellent way to
practice prescribing quickly on a wide variety of symptoms and conditions
you rarely see in a middle class practice.

Rosemary
On 31 Jan 2007, at 03:34, hahnemannian2002 wrote:

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi H.,
For one thing: The things you point out about modern life have
changed the acutes. This can be well demonstrated e.g. by the way
scarlet fever presents these days (at least in Germany).

So it would be reasoable to assume that the old "recipes" for treating
in TCM (and make no mistake, to a great degree TCM IS treatment by
recipes - only on a different base of diagnosis), but also the other
signs and symptoms TCM has treated by, have changed and to some degree
at least may no longer show the true picture to treat on.

For another:

"Acutes" to a great degree are infections. For bacterial infections
ABs have been very effective. Viral infections often have a bacterial
super-infection - for this the same applies - and when the super
infection has gone, one can often observe at least amelioriation.

The same goes for other kinds of acutes where cortisone and even OTC
drugs will amelioriate, if only by reducing fever, taking away pains
and aches, giving an illusion of well-being.

This is what the patients observe. The suppression effects, the
effects of dysbioses etc. are not as noticeable and are not realized
by the patients. When they (and I am quite included) have a a painful,
disabling acute or one that prevents them from doing their work or
prevents parents to go to work when the kids are sick - all they care
about is to get rid of that acute.

Thus patients go to the "allopaths" (actually TCM is also allopathic),
which leads to the TCM doctros getting less and less experience in the
tx of acutes, which again leads to less effectiveness in acute
treatments.

On the other hand - "allopathy" has a comparatively poor record of
effectiveness for chronic diseases. Most patients (in Germany) who go
to the homeopaths or TCM therapists have been to the allopaths before
and found no help, or acutes have kept recurring etc. And the record
of alternative kinds of treatment, including TCM and homeopathy, is
good by comparison.
No - they are often very effective.
(In Germany) this is true for many. But the reason for this is
that few patients come in with acutes and therefore they have little
experience - which of course tends to make them feel uncomfortable and
also tends to reduce their effectiveness of treatment.
No. Homeopathy CAN be much, much more effective and effective faster.
It is a vicious circle. Broad spectrum ABMs, Cortisone etc. are easy
to prescribe and mostly reliably effective.

Homeopathic remedies - while actually easier to find in acutes than
in chronics - still need skill to prescribe, and even the best
prescribers do not always (or even all that often?) find the right
remedy at first try. So homeopathic prescribing is comparatively not
reliable. This of course is even more true for homeopaths with little
experience with acutes. So the difference in perceived reliability
gets worse ....
(In Germany) To a certain degree,, indeed. Many homeopaths will not
treat acute states of their patients while those are under chronic
care. Those patients are the ones that often do come in with their
acutes. A certain number of homeopaths will not treat acutes they
consider non-serious in any case, because they think that those kinds
of acutes should not be treated, because they benefit the patient.
(Both of which attitudes, btw., are completely "non-Hahnemannian). So
the experience of the therapists borders on non-existence - how then
can they be comfortable or - worse - competent for treating serious
acutes? Of course also the reputation of homeopathy for treating
acutes suffers.
This is a big part of the picture, IMO.
I fully agree!

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Dale Moss]

I recently gained some patients from out of town who chose me because they wanted someone who could handle acutes -- and homeopaths closer to where they lived said they did only constitutional prescribing.

IMHO, making such a distinction is totallly unrealistic. Patients we treat constitutionally will have acute issues from time to time, and we should be there for them when they do. (Or risk having someone else muck up a case!)

I think it's a problem of training, or lack of it. Budding homeopaths who've done four years of training at reputable schools, including clinical supervision, don't seem to have learned how to think on their feet. A few weeks of doing homeopathy in wilderness settings, or volunteering at natural disasters, or even setting up occasional clinics could do much to supply that lack.

So could making house calls. One house call to a family down with the flu and you'll have some devoted clients.

The trick is not to know how to diagnose the problem (which those of us who are not MDs are not permitted to do), but how to gauge its seriousness and whether there is a proper direction of cure.

Peace,
Cinnabar

[Jean Doherty]

Has Crotalus Horridus ever been useful in these hemorragic fevers.
Maybe liver support remedies as well.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[VR VR]

I have two patients who are both doing well with Nux-V for chronic, but neither of them tell me if they get an acute during treatment, preferring to go to allopaths and take anti-biotics. Then they call me and say "I didn't call you before because I wasn't feeling well"... which leaves me wondering what I'm doing here... I've explained to them over and over again that it's worth while for them to be in touch at the beginning of an acute as they may not need the antibiotics but somehow neither of them seem to "get it". Wonder if it's connected to the Nux?!
Vera

Rosemary C Hyde PhD wrote:
Simon's answer was well taken, in my opinion. Also, people (generally in
the US anyway) run first to the drug store or doctor for the allopathic
medicine -- partially I think because it seems easier to take a "cold
medicine" for a cold, an "upset stomach" medicine for an upset stomach,
etc...

Remedies are incredibly effective for acutes once you get the hang of
finding the "SRP" aspect of the acute. Training patients to think in this
way effectively takes some time and energy. When they get it, prescribing
for their acutes becomes easy. When they haven't got it (e.g., "I have a
headache yesterday my stomach was upset. What should I take to get rid of
it?"), you sometimes can't get the necessary information from them,
especially if they're not used to homeopathic questions and thinking, or if
they're feeling really ill. Then, of course, there's the legal aspect -- if
it could possibly be something reportable, you'd better have them on their
way to the ER or doctor while they're taking the remedy! For homeopaths,
learning what acute symptoms are potentially life-threatening is crucial.

Training potential homeopathic patients in how to find the SRPs of acute
ailments, and also giving homeopathic practitioners a LOT more practice and
training in recognizing remedy pictures quickly in acute situations are two
essential changes for encouraging more use of homeopathy in acutes.
Volunteering in or starting a free collaborative homeopathic clinic for
homeless or street people (in most US urban areas) is an outstanding way to
get practice in recognizing both chronic and acute situations rapidly and
treating them. It's often very helpful to the people you're serving, who
are generally totally untreated medically. And it's an excellent way to
practice prescribing quickly on a wide variety of symptoms and conditions
you rarely see in a middle class practice.

Rosemary
---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

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

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

ps

Acute Rxs are usually easier to find than const because the high NRG
of the Px produces clear Sx= clear RX chioice:-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Maybe if you explain the any change (or lack of change) in the pattern
of acutes could be an important indicator for you to know how well
their constitutional treatment is going, so you would like them to tell
you, in as much detail as they can remember, about each of those
acutes. Then, *if* you are able to recognize a likely remedy for it,
you could remark, "Ah, that sounds like a __________. If we'd gotten
that in time, we might have nipped it off at ..." (whatever point you
would have expected / wanted them to call you at! Or, "Well, I guess
I'd have had to ask you more questions at the time, but..."). Give
them a sort of a "virtual tour" of how much *eeeeasier* it could be
going the remedies route! Our doc at first did most acute consults for
ongoing patients for free (or only a small charge); later that
privilege got abused by just one or two, and he instituted a more
substantial charge, but it *still* came out cheaper and easier than
going the allopathic route would have. Tho it would be tough if you're
competing with "free" allopathic treatments covered by insurance...
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]