Phosphorous delusion

[liesjecochrane]

I can't seem to work out why would phosphorous have the delusion; criminal, that he is.
Does anyone have any insight on this for me.
Much appreciated

[Shannon Nelson]

What an interesting question! My thought--perhaps because they tend to *feel* others' needs and expectations (being thin-skinned and attuned to people) but may repeatedly fail to meet those (being in some cases rather ditzy, forgetful, and easily distracted)? I look forward to others' ideas!

Shannon

[Rochelle]

They are so naive they feel guilty.
Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

[Robyn]

Phos has been added to this rubric, from as far as I can see on searching EH, only one case that Kent had.

It was a case of ‘acute mania’, for which there were many symptoms, one being that he ‘thought he was a criminal’.

Kent prescribed various remedies beginning with Med 10M, then when that made no difference, he tried Bell 10M, Sac lac, then Lach 10M, Sac lac, then Hyos 10M. He started to improve, after about a month of treatments so far tried, but still thought was a criminal. Sac lac, and then eventually about a month and a half in, Phos 10M given, with some improvement over a month, so given Phos 10M again, and the case was finished off a month later with another dose of Phos 50M.
From this, Phos was put into that rubric.

As you can see from my brief summary above, Phos was only one of the remedies given in this case although it is called a Phos case.

Personally, if it is only recorded by one patient, as this one is, and attributed to Phos as this particular case did, then I would not place too much weight on it.

The patient in this case also thought he was Christ at one point – however, Phos missed out on being included in that rubric!

From this, just be wary. I don’t think there is justification in the case of Phos at least, to ‘generalize’ from this evidence.

I would also suggest that this symptom, fits into the delusions of schizophrenia.

Robyn
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rochelle
Sent: Sunday, 6 December 2009 10:43 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Fw: [Minutus] Phosphorous delusion
They are so naive they feel guilty.
Rochelle

Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

[Shannon Nelson]

Robyn, thanks for that terrific background!!

But (realizing this is anecdotal!) one of the unpleasant things that Phos got rid of for me, in my "early years" as a h'c patient, was an unexplainable but pretty constant background guilty feeling. Nothing I even mentioned to my prescriber, but I really noticed when it left, and Phos is what took it away for me. Now this was not so strong as being a *belief*, and the word "criminal" never came to my mind, but just a free-floating guilty feeling; seems in the same ballpark, tho. (I did have other remedies here and there during that time too, so I'm happy enough to leave it in the "anecdotal" category.)

I'm curious whether anyone else had or saw similar? (Tho, my h'th would not have known, since I never did see any reason to mention it to him.)

Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

Depends on whether you want to go beyond self evident proving sx or sx arrived at from curative cases etc.

Seems to fit clearly with the anxiety and fear factors well within the Phos range - the most obvious one being 'accuses herself of obscene actions of which she has not been guilty' which will translate quite easily into 'anxiety of conscience' (as if guilty of a crime). Also bound up with notions about devils, fire, frightful images, being murdered, arrested, feeling of being a high rank (also guilt oriented sensation), the need to escape.

Can take many forms.

Joy

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

[Pat Austin]

Joy,
Could you, or someone else, post an explanation the shorthand of the trade here.
i.e.; , sx, etc. Please. It would help so much in understanding/learning what is being said.
Thanks.
Patricia

[Sue Boyle]

Homeopathic "shorthand" with some "medical shorthand thrown in for good measure

< Worse
Sx Symptoms
Dx Diagnosis
Hx History
F.H. Family History
CHD Childhood Diseases
OM Otitis Media-an earache
with the computer we can't underline symptoms like we do with written notes but 3 underlines is an intense or strongly related sx 2 less intense and one mentioned but not really strong. I can't reproduce my nursing shorthand on the computer but it comes in handy during a class !
All the shorthand I could think of off the top of my head. Anyone else with more or different ones ?

Sue

Joy,
Could you, or someone else, post an explanation the shorthand of the trade here.
i.e.; , sx, etc. Please. It would help so much in understanding/learning what is being said.
Thanks.
Patricia

[Joy Lucas]

There are so many abbreviations and possibly in the archives there is a list of quite a few, i seem to remember from way back myself or someone doing this but for the time being:-

< or << or <<< = worse or aggravated (in degrees)
sx = symptoms

rx = remedy (recipe, prescription)

if you can't find the reference in the archives then please keep asking about other abbreviations.

Joy

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

Joy,
Could you, or someone else, post an explanation the shorthand of the trade here.
i.e.; , sx, etc. Please. It would help so much in understanding/learning what is being said.
Thanks.
Patricia

[John Harvey]

Robyn, this is a really good point, and one easily overlooked. Kent's use of it in that case, presumably by analogy with exactly the symptoms that Joy has mentioned, in a patient who imagined he was a criminal seems reasonable enough. But Kent made a serious mistake in adding the "criminal" symptom to his repertory on that basis without distinguishing it from a proving symptom, as he could not control how many recursions there might be of this same process of analogy, forever adding to the repertory decreasingly closely related symptoms on the basis of a supposed cure.

Even, however, if Kent had instituted a clear system by which to distinguish such "cured" symptoms from proving symptoms, basing a prescription on cured symptoms (as opposed to using analogy with a proving symptom) would remain a fundamental error. Homoeopathic prescription is not based one iota on a record of cured symptoms, but only on the similarity of the proving's to the patient's symptoms. One extends one's pure homoeopathy by reasoned guesswork (including intelligent analogy) in general; but one does so on a secure footing only if the information that the guesswork (including analogy) is relating together is relevant -- and "cured" symptoms, the basis of allopathy, simply have no relevance to homoeopathic prescriptions, which are based on the symptoms that emerge in provings.

As well as the other, historically well known, reasons for carefully distinguishing the basis of homoeopathy as lying in pathogenetic trials rather than clinical ones, there is the crucial but oft overlooked point that any homoeopathic remedy is capable of curing symptoms that it is not capable of causing. Let me say that again: every homoeopathic remedy is capable of curing symptoms that it cannot cause.

It is this property that largely accounts for the success rate of even very poor prescribers -- at least, of those who are not so ill-informed as to prescribe frequently repeated doses or compound or combination "remedies". And, if you think about it, it also becomes obvious as the explanation for the success of homoeopathic antidotes. A remedy can cure a broader spectrum of symptoms than it can cause. For that very simple reason alone, cured symptoms cannot be used as the basis for any homoeopathic prescription.

Let me forestall at once any panicked thoughts that I am recommending that all homoeopathic prescriptions take account only of what appears in Hering's Guiding Symptoms and any equivalents concerning modern provings (few though there be of adequate quality); I am not. The homoeopathic pharmacopeia up to around 1900, which enjoyed a frenzy of provings conducted by dispassionate observers in its early days, remains unfortunately supplemented by little more than rubbish in the past 90 years. For this reason, it would often be very difficult to make a prescription, especially of newer remedies, purely on the basis of similarity of pathogenetic symptoms to the symptoms of the patient.

To overcome these limitations, all homoeopaths use other clues as to one remedy's greater suitability than another's to the patient; clues that may arise via its relationships with cured symptoms, with other remedies, and so on; and such clues will sometimes draw us toward one or another remedy, and often will make the difference between a remedy that is curative and one that is just not close enough.

I am not suggesting that homoeopaths not attempt to fill that hiatus by forgoing such educated guesswork. What I am saying, though, is that in order to practise homoeopathy with increasing rather than decreasing success, it is necessary to remain diligent in recognising that such bases for prescription, though we may all rely on them every day to assist us, fall firmly outside homoeopathic practice, which is based entirely in symptom similarity. Homoeopathy is the practice of medicine on a basis of greatest known symptom similarity of pathogenesis to patient. That is homoeopathy, and anything else is not.

Once we blur the distinction between prescription upon a basis of greatest known symptom similarity and the educated guesswork that accompanies it as a daily necessity, we are in danger of regarding as homoeopathic practice anything that appears to promise much the same prescription outcome -- whether it in fact produces it or not.

One of the outcomes of that confusion, as we have seen here many times in the past, is a fundamental confusion of other basic concepts, such as between simillimum and similar (even similar in any sense at all!); between proving (pathogenetic trial) and clinical "proof"; between cure and improvement; between medicinal aggravation and the symptoms that arise through a medicine's insufficient suitability; between definition and description; and, ultimately, between homoeopathic method and anything else that purports to offer a cure, or management, or improvement, or just to help somebody feel, purportedly, better about something.

Such confusions have been often expressed on this list for years, precisely because of the blurring of that line that distinguishes homoeopathic practice from everything else: its basis in the similarity of pathogenetic symptoms to the patient's symptoms.

So -- thanks again for raising the point; it's a vital one.

Cheers!

John
2009/12/6 Robyn >