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

[Sheri Nakken]

At 07:07 AM 12/5/2009, you wrote:
who is this?
how do we know good results?
is it suppression?
is it palliation?
we don't know, do we

how is that individualized?
Sheri
________________________________
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
Next classes start December 2 & 3

[Liz Brynin]

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
________________________________

[Chris_Gillen]

Hmm, nice bit of allopathic work! I think we can try to offer our patients better *homoeopathic* results than that.
I've seen a severe and chronic allergic dermatitis resolve with 2 doses of Mercury LM01.
Chris.

[Robyn]

This list has degenerated into constant colleague bashing and consistent and determined efforts to squash anything that does not toe some line exhorted as being the only line worth toeing.

Very unprofessional!

[Shannon Nelson]

Which part of this strikes you as allopathic (lit. "different suffering")?
Do you simply mean routinist? (I'm assuming the prescription was arrived at via symptom similarity; are you assuming otherwise?)
Shannon

[Chris_Gillen]

Yes Shannon, you got it. Routinist daily dry doses for weeks on end. Perhaps Liz could produce the casenotes that designate at which point in time the vital reaction *on its own* (i.e. without the continuous daily dosing with the remedy) was signifying a return to health. Maybe the patient just eventually ran out nat mur pillules )
Otherwise it appears the prescription produced a typical (palliative and/or suppressive) allopathic primary drug action produced by the continuous dosing - not unlike the effect you get with daily dosing of cortisone for chronic skin complaints which eventually pushes the patient into a quasi- "remission".
What do you make of it?
Chris.

[Gail Allen]

Suppression or palliation can also happen with 2 doses of an LM.
It is the individual response (beyond simple disappearance of a symptom) that lets you know whether you are heading into suppression, palliation, proving, aggravation in an oversensitive patient, or cure, not the method of dosing, size of dose, or number of doses.

Gail
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: chrisgillen1@optusnet.com.au
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:41:24 +1000
Subject: Fw: [Minutus] that the same potency shouldn't be given twice in a row

Yes Shannon, you got it. Routinist daily dry doses for weeks on end. Perhaps Liz could produce the casenotes that designate at which point in time the vital reaction *on its own* (i.e. without the continuous daily dosing with the remedy) was signifying a return to health. Maybe the patient just eventually ran out nat mur pillules )
Otherwise it appears the prescription produced a typical (palliative and/or suppressive) allopathic primary drug action produced by the continuous dosing - not unlike the effect you get with daily dosing of cortisone for chronic skin complaints which eventually pushes the patient into a quasi- "remission".
What do you make of it?
Chris.

[Gail Allen]

Hi Chris,
My point was that you gave as much detail about patient response as Liz did - ie the skin symptoms went away.
I actually did assume that both of you presented your experience as professional homeopaths, which includes being able to assess whether you are looking at symptom suppression/palliation/proving/aggravation or cure and adjusting remedy, potency and dose accordingly.
Gail
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: chrisgillen1@optusnet.com.au
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 16:46:51 +1000
Subject: Fw: [Minutus] that the same potency shouldn't be given twice in a row

[Theresa Partington]

It seems there are two main ways to judge whether a 'successful' result has been genuine cure or suppression.
1. with hindsight depending on what other symptoms emerge following the prescription
2.depending on what methodology someone used. ie if it was not what what we believe is correct it must, de facto, have been suppressive. Conversely if the 'correct' procedure was followed it can't have been suppressive.
Any logicians out there?
Theresa

[Liz Brynin]

Dear Chris
With respect, as you know nothing about the case or the resolution, I think you should keep such comments to yourself.
Your comparison with another case that needed only 2 doses of a remedy simply confirm that your knowledge of homeopathy leaves something to be desired. The first thing you should have picked up from your studies is that every case is different. Such comparisons are worthless.
Liz