that the same potency shouldn't be given twice in a row

[Liz Brynin]

...............yaaaaawn!

[Joy Lucas]

Back out if you so wish but the practice that is being put under supervision of giving relentless repeated dry doses which is not qualified in any of Hahnemann's teachings has to be warned against as did Hahnemann himself, in no subtle way, the dangers involved. I believe the relevant § and passages have been given. Cure is questionable when physical sx such as pitted nails remain, an indication of a deeper disease, a disease which can harbour for months and years even. Time passing and suppression of skin complaints, especially severe ones will always make someone happier. A child given cortisone cream will soon be feeling >>>, until....... and unless you are accepting that allopathic approach as being wonderful I don't know how you going to appreciate the warnings against that kind of practice in homeopathy.

I have known clients come to me who have been prescribed a single rx, daily not for weeks or months but years and unbelievably, on the surface, in one such case, there has been no apparent grafting of the disease picture, until I asked her to stop, the case became almost incurable. Took years to work on.

Claimed cure or believed cure or whatever you want to call it, if the case cited was one that 'got away' then think 'lucky' as it might not happen again. And it still begs the questions, why on earth would anyone want to practice like that and how and why have they been taught to do so?

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

[Joy Lucas]

I'd get that arrogance checked out if I were you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yawn

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

[Shannon Nelson]

1) Somehow I can't find Liz's original post; I wanted to remind myself just what was done with the external applications, and how it related with the retreat of the eczema. I doubt, though, that the cream was originally applied to the original outbreak, and then chased the outbreak through its entire DOC retreat... Or am I remembering wrong? (The usual route of *suppressed* outbreak would be not toward the toes etc., but instead into inner levels. Do you see any sign of this result in Liz's report?)

2) Recall my question was, "... I don't mean what methods might we suppose *would* be suppressive; I mean what do you read as indicating that it *was*?" Sounds like you are *assuming*suppression, based on a single factor of the treatment, not that there is anything in the reported *result* that leads you to the conclusion?

[Shannon Nelson]

The definition of "suppression" is *not* "symptom goes away"; the definition is that "symptom goes away ***and is replaced by new disorder in a more essential organ***. At least that's how I learned it...

[Shannon Nelson]

So you're figuring the real cure, of her deep emotional distress and shame, as well as the more superficial but distressing symptoms, came about through having her husband perhaps re-adjusting nicely to life in jail, and her self-harming son safely tucked away on another continent? Interesting idea, but I'm thinking you have never been a wife and mommy.

Well, it does look like we're at the limits of what can be verified from the case report itself, and back into "dueling assumptions", so time again to leave it there, I think.

Best wishes,
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

I wish the discussion could be conducted in more patient and respectful terms, because as I've often said, I very much *agree* (surprise) that giving doses "as needed" is better, and same would, so far as I know, apply whether one is giving wet *or* dry doses. I have found it to be better (whether using wet or dry doses) for very practical reasons, e.g. that it gives one more *information* about what the remedy is doing. But how can one have both a "sharing of information" and a whack-fest? The latter pretty much whacks away the chance to do the former.

[Joy Lucas]

This is a list for Hahnemannian homeopathy and there are many of us here who are, frankly, amazed that we have to fight for that purpose and when we do have to it is tantamount to 'head banging'. On top of that this method of prescribing is nothing short of dangerous as has been taught us reliably by Hahnemann so it really becomes a situation where 'patient and respectful is no longer relevant over and above the issues at hand. Why do we have to be respectful of methods that are so anti-Hahnemannian? It is as simple as that. But then you'd have to be sure that people are not being patient and respectful. You can only see it from your own perspective and that shouldn't dictate.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

[John Harvey]

Hi, Shannon --
I can help out here, I think.
(1)
Here is Liz's original post, of 11:07 p.m. GMT, 5 December:
==========================QUOTE
I have to say here that I have had a very successful resolution of a severe case of dermatitis/eczema after giving Nat Mur 6C daily for weeks on end (dry dose)
Liz
UNQUOTE==========================
Liz's next post containing anything about the case, from 7:10 p.m. GMT, 7 December (parts pertinent to the question of proper evaluation in magenta):
==========================QUOTE
Sorry Chris - I didn't mean to 'control' you!
But you could have replied to my original post in a less confrontational way - it's a bit rich you calling my prescription 'allopathic' when you know nothing at all about the case, on what basis I prescribed as I did, and what the outcome was. So in that sense, your comparison of my prescription and yours, so radically different, was worthless.More to the point, it's unscientific. You can't compare (and that's what I meant by keeping such comments to yourself) because you don't have any facts. I, on the other hand, have the full facts of my case to hand - so I can say that dry potencies work - they cure. And they are not allopathic.
No doubt you would like me to explain in detail - quite honestly, I don't really want to - don't have the time. But here are the basic facts, just so that you know I'm not inventing anything, and so that you can understand why I will not accept 'blanket statements' such as "Dry potencies do not work/cause aggravations/are allopathic/harm the patient/are suppressive" or any other such remarks that have been made.
CASE: This was a middle-aged woman - PC was dermatitis, which had broken out severely on her scalp (she had had milder outbreaks in the past) since her husband had been arrested and put into prison for pornography online. Her hair had started coming out and her shoulders were covered in 'snow' from the scurf and she was acutely aware of it and embarrassed. Very stressed and ashamed of the whole situation etc. Would not look at me directly, sat sideways and avoided eye contact.
She intially had Nat Mur 30 - 1M over 3 days, plus IM to hold and take weekly till next visit. To ring me after two weeks to report.
She did not ring - contacted me 6 weeks later. Was feeling much better - stronger emotionally. Not weeping every few minutes. However, the dermatitis had spread down the back of her neck (> on top of head) and broken out under her breasts. Still very scurfy - looked terrible. hair not falling out so much.
Prescription changed to Nat Mur 12C b.d. in order to deal with the physical expression of her grief, plus Ignatia 200C to hold for when she felt the grief was overwhelming. (the courtcase had been delayed, police had come round to get his computer etc. etc. Very emotional situation)

Also prescribed Oil of Evening primrose to help with dry skin plus some aromatherapy base oil with Bach Flower Crab Apple to rub into her scalp.
Phoned two weeks later. Improvement continuing - oil a big help for her scalp.
Returned two months later. To my surprise, a different woman. Much happier - looked me straight in the eye. Dermatitis has cleared off her scalp and moved further down to her abdomen, then to her groin, the ends of her fingers (now cleared but nails are pitted) and her legs have now begun to break out and itch a little.
Presc. Continue as before. Nat. Mur 12C b.d.
Subsequently, she did not return as things had got so much better - she sold her house, changed jobs and was doing very well when I ran into her again by accident a year or so later.
Liz
Next visit

Liz
UNQUOTE==========================
And Liz's next post, from 9:17 p.m. GMT, 7 December (parts pertinent to the question of proper evaluation in magenta):
==========================QUOTE
Dear Joy
I see you have to have it spelt out - must be a hole in your knowledge somewhere.
The - whole - case - was - following - the - direction - of - cure. Got that? Don't understand? The nails were the last part of the upper extremities to manifest. You have a problem with that? Go read a bit more.
Oh - and by the way, she actually didn't have any misery - was very happy. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Liz
UNQUOTE==========================
A clear case of judging that the suppression of the dermatitis using allopathic polypharmacy AND a medicinal rub into the dermatitis was a cure purely on the basis that she now had pitting of the nails -- itself, as Joy points out, a symptom to be concerned about.
And no, there's no mention of whether Liz checked whether the patient had applied the cream to all the new outbreaks of dermatitis; having based her evaluation of progress on checking so little else, I highly doubt that she bothered with that, but we shall never know.
I can see from your post after this one, Shannon --
"The definition of "suppression" is *not* "symptom goes away"; the definition is that "symptom goes away ***and is replaced by new disorder in a more essential organ***. At least that's how I learned it..."
-- where some confusion may have arisen. If you were taught that suppression requires the immediate appearance of new symptoms in a recognisably more serious location, then you were taught wrongly. (But so may Liz, and others, have been.)
First, when the expression of a symptom is suppressed, it means simply what it says; this is a matter again of turning to the dictionary. One doesn't have to wait around with a stopwatch for the sequelae.
Second, the known result of the attempt at suppression was the suppression. And, yes, the patient was not gravely ill as a result when last heard from. This may due to the shortness of the follow-up period; or it may be, more fortunately, because...
Third, as you know, the symptoms did in this case continue, fortunately, to re-express themselves in the skin (at last consultation, known to be present on the thighs).
Fourth, had the symptoms not re-expressed themselves, what Liz might reasonably have expected, based on the many cases that Hahnemann quoted in Chronic Diseases and others that dispassionate observers have noted since? She might reasonably have expected that within a couple of years, possibly within a week, the result of such suppression would be illness of a more serious -- and commonly recognisably related, as in the pattern in which asthma commonly ensues upon suppression of eczema -- occasionally fatal nature. Grave illness may ensue even upon the first suppression, but is liable to do so particularly upon a subsequent suppression. Was this the first such suppression? Did Liz enquire? No, she did not.
(2)
I think that clearing up the meaning of suppression adequately clears this second question up: we know that it was suppression not by the patient's keeling over and dying a week later but by the fact of the symptom's having been successfully suppressed.
Cheers!
John
2009/12/11 Shannon & Bob Nelson >

[John Harvey]

Okay, answered this in the previous post.
John
2009/12/11 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"There is a case to be made for using some of the cretins who think animal research is still necessary as experimental subjects."

-- panamajack,