Hi,
when I subscribed to this group I thought it was supposed to be to help people to learn about
homeopathics and use them properly. Please enlighten me if this isn't so. Thanks.
JM
purpose of group
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: purpose of group
Dear Janine
That is indeed a correct view of what Minutus is all about.
We are all student eager to learn more from this Hahnemannian group where we share ideas and thoughts and also ask questions and request guidance.
One beauty of the group is that being international, some one is awake at all times so urgent questions can receive quick answers.
We look forward to your contributions and input.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Janine M
Sent: 27 November 2012 16:06
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] purpose of group
Hi,
when I subscribed to this group I thought it was supposed to be to help people to learn about
homeopathics and use them properly. Please enlighten me if this isn't so. Thanks.
JM
That is indeed a correct view of what Minutus is all about.
We are all student eager to learn more from this Hahnemannian group where we share ideas and thoughts and also ask questions and request guidance.
One beauty of the group is that being international, some one is awake at all times so urgent questions can receive quick answers.
We look forward to your contributions and input.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Janine M
Sent: 27 November 2012 16:06
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] purpose of group
Hi,
when I subscribed to this group I thought it was supposed to be to help people to learn about
homeopathics and use them properly. Please enlighten me if this isn't so. Thanks.
JM
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: purpose of group
Hi, Janine --
If Jinny's answer to the question about the cat's treatment is what prompted your question, it's understandable, as you'd obviously like to learn to improve your own use of homoeopathy (if that's what you mean by using "homoeopathics" to treat her). It's worth considering a couple of factors particular to these circumstances, though. Animals are always difficult to treat homoeopathically, for two simple reasons: because homoeopathic medicines (unlike those developed for allopathic use) have primarily been tested on humans, and because they can't describe their subjective symptoms. Cats are particularly
reluctant to convey the ins and outs of their illnesses, and a cat that's visibly ill is often in danger of losing its life, so it's no great time for experimentation.
To expand just a little on what Jinny was saying:
It's critical in homoeopathic practice (professional, amateur, or pure cottager) to grasp an understanding of the basis of its sole principle so well that you don't make the mistake of prescribing "homoeopathic" medicines allopathically, as you're extremely likely to do if you prescribe repeated unchanged potencies without an intervening period of remission and delayed recurrence.
The principle of like-curing-like rests on an understanding that, when you give the medicine that is homoeopathic to the patient's condition (in the present case, the condition of your cat), you give it for two reasons.
The first reason is that it is the medicine that will most readily, entirely, and gently (all three factors being important) replace the natural "disease" with its own, artificial "disease". As I'm sure you're aware, a homoeopathic view of illness must necessarily take account not only of the particulars but also of the patient's general state and the external conditions influencing the entire state. But it also necessarily comprehends the progression of the illness. Some such dynamic understanding of the illness is essential to proper practice. Without it, you'd miss a most important aspect of the matter: that illness is essentially not "pathological" -- i.e., not primarily a matter of tissue alterations -- but dynamic: a matter of derangement of normal homoeostatic process.
The medicine's primary action -- its capacity of deranging health -- is the sole basis on which you prescribe it homoeopathically. The sole primary purpose of administering the homoeopathic medicine is complete replacement of one (so-called natural, though it may be induced by poisoning, trauma, etc.) process of illness by a medicinal process of illness -- and it's for exactly that reason that it is not possible, ever, to place the same patient under the influence of two medicines at one time that are homoeopathic to her condition.
The second reason you give the medicine that is homoeopathic to the patient's dynamic process of being ill is that the organism -- once it accepts the medicine's gentle replacement of the original derangement process by its own derangement process -- responds (its secondary reaction) in a way that is entirely more beneficial than the way in which it had responded to the original dynamic influence.
In the case of acute illnesses, that beneficence tends to be a matter of replacing the original process by one that is milder and more easily overcome in the way in which the organism overcomes any acute illness to which it is adequate.
In the case of chronic illness, the beneficence tends to be a matter of replacing a long-standing, relatively unchanging process -- a process to which the organism had become accustomed and with which it had reached a new, but unhealthy, balance -- with another that, though similar in pattern, is different in pace and that induces a reaction akin to the organism's reaction to any acute illness.
For this reason as well as others, it is important that the healing process -- in which the body's ability to react to challenge has been stimulated and has roused its various mechanisms for dealing with the new intruder -- not be unduly disturbed, as it is when the same medicine is repeated in unchanged potency.
The result of such repetition is often unfortunate but is above all unpredictable.
One beauty of homoeopathy is that the result of a correct prescription is by and large predictable according to the nature of the illness, the strength of the patient, and the potency and size of the dose. Such predictability flies out the window as soon as the secondary reaction to the medicine is dynamically upset by a fresh dynamic influence, one that may antidote the original, strengthen it, or even reestablish it despite the organism's change in state and suitability for a different medicine. Repeating the medicine without gathering what it is that has occurred in the intervening period leaves you without a basis for understanding the influence of either the second or the first dose and whether either was at all suitable. This is all the more so when the symptoms have disappeared or abated in that intervening period: after a second dose, it will no longer be possible to gather whether the abatement of symptoms represented an improvement or a homoeopathic suppression (similarity insufficient to be truly curative but sufficient to induce a partial secondary response) or a merely allopathic suppression.
This is one major reason for being extremely careful not to repeat unchanged potencies. Another lies in the ability of all medicines, even in high potency, to induce an unsuitable state of illness.
Of course, everybody understands that low quantities of the original chemical medicine, and ultramolecular potencies in particular (those potencies with no significant probability of retaining a trace of the original medicine), can't have much chemical effect. But it is dynamised medicines' abilities to induce dynamic effects nevertheless that allows us to use them with both benefit and safety -- and those abilities are primarily abilities to derange health. If the derangement that you induce with a single dose is unsuitable, you are, in most patients, unlikely ever even to detect it. But repeat that dose often enough -- say, once a day -- and you may find that it becomes not only detectable but progressive. We've seen more than a few such cases represented in queries on this list, in which the medicine, which seemed to have done such good work at first, seems to have done nothing despite frequent repetition except to aggravate the patient's condition. In many such cases, it is patently obvious that what has occurred is that the patient's original, relatively stable, condition has been replaced by a medicinally induced one that is aggravated from day to day by a fresh dose of the medicine.
Such catastrophe is readily avoided simply by following Hahnemann's extremely clear and clearcut advice on the subject of repetition: do not do it, except in changed potency. Yes, if you know what you're about and remain observant and take your time, it is possible, after a sufficient wait for the original symptoms to return, to repeat the original dose unchanged. But the entire point of repetition is to accelerate the process of healing by not awaiting a return of the original illness. It is not necessarily possible to evaluate the effect of every dose (though it is always advisable to evaluate the effect of the first dose before repeating it) in maintaining that pace. And in that case, the only way to avoid the risk of medicinal "aggravation" (which is actually not a "homoeopathic" aggravation -- which is merely a late secondary response to the medicine -- but an aggravation only of the primary medicinally induced illness) is to change the potency slightly between doses.
Kind regards,
John
If Jinny's answer to the question about the cat's treatment is what prompted your question, it's understandable, as you'd obviously like to learn to improve your own use of homoeopathy (if that's what you mean by using "homoeopathics" to treat her). It's worth considering a couple of factors particular to these circumstances, though. Animals are always difficult to treat homoeopathically, for two simple reasons: because homoeopathic medicines (unlike those developed for allopathic use) have primarily been tested on humans, and because they can't describe their subjective symptoms. Cats are particularly
reluctant to convey the ins and outs of their illnesses, and a cat that's visibly ill is often in danger of losing its life, so it's no great time for experimentation.
To expand just a little on what Jinny was saying:
It's critical in homoeopathic practice (professional, amateur, or pure cottager) to grasp an understanding of the basis of its sole principle so well that you don't make the mistake of prescribing "homoeopathic" medicines allopathically, as you're extremely likely to do if you prescribe repeated unchanged potencies without an intervening period of remission and delayed recurrence.
The principle of like-curing-like rests on an understanding that, when you give the medicine that is homoeopathic to the patient's condition (in the present case, the condition of your cat), you give it for two reasons.
The first reason is that it is the medicine that will most readily, entirely, and gently (all three factors being important) replace the natural "disease" with its own, artificial "disease". As I'm sure you're aware, a homoeopathic view of illness must necessarily take account not only of the particulars but also of the patient's general state and the external conditions influencing the entire state. But it also necessarily comprehends the progression of the illness. Some such dynamic understanding of the illness is essential to proper practice. Without it, you'd miss a most important aspect of the matter: that illness is essentially not "pathological" -- i.e., not primarily a matter of tissue alterations -- but dynamic: a matter of derangement of normal homoeostatic process.
The medicine's primary action -- its capacity of deranging health -- is the sole basis on which you prescribe it homoeopathically. The sole primary purpose of administering the homoeopathic medicine is complete replacement of one (so-called natural, though it may be induced by poisoning, trauma, etc.) process of illness by a medicinal process of illness -- and it's for exactly that reason that it is not possible, ever, to place the same patient under the influence of two medicines at one time that are homoeopathic to her condition.
The second reason you give the medicine that is homoeopathic to the patient's dynamic process of being ill is that the organism -- once it accepts the medicine's gentle replacement of the original derangement process by its own derangement process -- responds (its secondary reaction) in a way that is entirely more beneficial than the way in which it had responded to the original dynamic influence.
In the case of acute illnesses, that beneficence tends to be a matter of replacing the original process by one that is milder and more easily overcome in the way in which the organism overcomes any acute illness to which it is adequate.
In the case of chronic illness, the beneficence tends to be a matter of replacing a long-standing, relatively unchanging process -- a process to which the organism had become accustomed and with which it had reached a new, but unhealthy, balance -- with another that, though similar in pattern, is different in pace and that induces a reaction akin to the organism's reaction to any acute illness.
For this reason as well as others, it is important that the healing process -- in which the body's ability to react to challenge has been stimulated and has roused its various mechanisms for dealing with the new intruder -- not be unduly disturbed, as it is when the same medicine is repeated in unchanged potency.
The result of such repetition is often unfortunate but is above all unpredictable.
One beauty of homoeopathy is that the result of a correct prescription is by and large predictable according to the nature of the illness, the strength of the patient, and the potency and size of the dose. Such predictability flies out the window as soon as the secondary reaction to the medicine is dynamically upset by a fresh dynamic influence, one that may antidote the original, strengthen it, or even reestablish it despite the organism's change in state and suitability for a different medicine. Repeating the medicine without gathering what it is that has occurred in the intervening period leaves you without a basis for understanding the influence of either the second or the first dose and whether either was at all suitable. This is all the more so when the symptoms have disappeared or abated in that intervening period: after a second dose, it will no longer be possible to gather whether the abatement of symptoms represented an improvement or a homoeopathic suppression (similarity insufficient to be truly curative but sufficient to induce a partial secondary response) or a merely allopathic suppression.
This is one major reason for being extremely careful not to repeat unchanged potencies. Another lies in the ability of all medicines, even in high potency, to induce an unsuitable state of illness.
Of course, everybody understands that low quantities of the original chemical medicine, and ultramolecular potencies in particular (those potencies with no significant probability of retaining a trace of the original medicine), can't have much chemical effect. But it is dynamised medicines' abilities to induce dynamic effects nevertheless that allows us to use them with both benefit and safety -- and those abilities are primarily abilities to derange health. If the derangement that you induce with a single dose is unsuitable, you are, in most patients, unlikely ever even to detect it. But repeat that dose often enough -- say, once a day -- and you may find that it becomes not only detectable but progressive. We've seen more than a few such cases represented in queries on this list, in which the medicine, which seemed to have done such good work at first, seems to have done nothing despite frequent repetition except to aggravate the patient's condition. In many such cases, it is patently obvious that what has occurred is that the patient's original, relatively stable, condition has been replaced by a medicinally induced one that is aggravated from day to day by a fresh dose of the medicine.
Such catastrophe is readily avoided simply by following Hahnemann's extremely clear and clearcut advice on the subject of repetition: do not do it, except in changed potency. Yes, if you know what you're about and remain observant and take your time, it is possible, after a sufficient wait for the original symptoms to return, to repeat the original dose unchanged. But the entire point of repetition is to accelerate the process of healing by not awaiting a return of the original illness. It is not necessarily possible to evaluate the effect of every dose (though it is always advisable to evaluate the effect of the first dose before repeating it) in maintaining that pace. And in that case, the only way to avoid the risk of medicinal "aggravation" (which is actually not a "homoeopathic" aggravation -- which is merely a late secondary response to the medicine -- but an aggravation only of the primary medicinally induced illness) is to change the potency slightly between doses.
Kind regards,
John
-
Kristy Lampe
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:00 pm
Re: purpose of group
Hi Janine,
There are times when things “other” than homeopathy are mentioned; this is quite in line with Dr. Hahnemann’s request to “remove obstacles to the cure.” Dr. H. also mentions in Aphorism 261 that we should partake of nutritious food, innocent recreations of the mind, moderate exercise in all weather, and so on.
Homeopaths should explore all those factors when taking the case.
I once heard the late Dr. Andrew Lockie talk about his practice. He would ask patients to fill out several pages of health history and general information. Using that at the initial consultation, he would ask the patient to follow one of 6 diet-programs he had developed (to the best of their ability) and to return for the full case-taking after 30 days. He said it was like fine-tuning your TV screen – after 30 days, he could better see the true “derangement” in the patient’s Vital Force.
Kristy
There are times when things “other” than homeopathy are mentioned; this is quite in line with Dr. Hahnemann’s request to “remove obstacles to the cure.” Dr. H. also mentions in Aphorism 261 that we should partake of nutritious food, innocent recreations of the mind, moderate exercise in all weather, and so on.
Homeopaths should explore all those factors when taking the case.
I once heard the late Dr. Andrew Lockie talk about his practice. He would ask patients to fill out several pages of health history and general information. Using that at the initial consultation, he would ask the patient to follow one of 6 diet-programs he had developed (to the best of their ability) and to return for the full case-taking after 30 days. He said it was like fine-tuning your TV screen – after 30 days, he could better see the true “derangement” in the patient’s Vital Force.
Kristy
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: purpose of group
Kristy,
that's really interesting! Do you know if he wrote about this somewhere, or any more about the six diet programs and how he chose which he wanted the patient to follow?
Shannon
that's really interesting! Do you know if he wrote about this somewhere, or any more about the six diet programs and how he chose which he wanted the patient to follow?
Shannon
-
Paul Booyse
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: purpose of group
Hi Kristy,
Vithoulkas on the other hand once said if people are controlling their diets he sends them away to eat as they wish for 3 months. Then they come back with symptoms which show vital force derangement.
Either way, if a person has hypoglycaemic attacks then you need the symptoms, whether it is a past experience they can recall or current. And if they can’t remember, then maybe let them have sugar and get the symptoms, IF that is what you need.
It’s like a patient says they have regular bowel movements, no constipation. But on further questioning they take a laxative regularly, or fibre. If not, they are constipated, so you need tos ee where symptoms are masked.
Regards,
Paul
From: Kristy Lampe
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 2:40 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: purpose of group
Hi Janine,
There are times when things “other” than homeopathy are mentioned; this is quite in line with Dr. Hahnemann’s request to “remove obstacles to the cure.” Dr. H. also mentions in Aphorism 261 that we should partake of nutritious food, innocent recreations of the mind, moderate exercise in all weather, and so on.
Homeopaths should explore all those factors when taking the case.
I once heard the late Dr. Andrew Lockie talk about his practice. He would ask patients to fill out several pages of health history and general information. Using that at the initial consultation, he would ask the patient to follow one of 6 diet-programs he had developed (to the best of their ability) and to return for the full case-taking after 30 days. He said it was like fine-tuning your TV screen – after 30 days, he could better see the true “derangement” in the patient’s Vital Force.
Kristy
Vithoulkas on the other hand once said if people are controlling their diets he sends them away to eat as they wish for 3 months. Then they come back with symptoms which show vital force derangement.
Either way, if a person has hypoglycaemic attacks then you need the symptoms, whether it is a past experience they can recall or current. And if they can’t remember, then maybe let them have sugar and get the symptoms, IF that is what you need.
It’s like a patient says they have regular bowel movements, no constipation. But on further questioning they take a laxative regularly, or fibre. If not, they are constipated, so you need tos ee where symptoms are masked.
Regards,
Paul
From: Kristy Lampe
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 2:40 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: purpose of group
Hi Janine,
There are times when things “other” than homeopathy are mentioned; this is quite in line with Dr. Hahnemann’s request to “remove obstacles to the cure.” Dr. H. also mentions in Aphorism 261 that we should partake of nutritious food, innocent recreations of the mind, moderate exercise in all weather, and so on.
Homeopaths should explore all those factors when taking the case.
I once heard the late Dr. Andrew Lockie talk about his practice. He would ask patients to fill out several pages of health history and general information. Using that at the initial consultation, he would ask the patient to follow one of 6 diet-programs he had developed (to the best of their ability) and to return for the full case-taking after 30 days. He said it was like fine-tuning your TV screen – after 30 days, he could better see the true “derangement” in the patient’s Vital Force.
Kristy
-
Kristy Lampe
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:00 pm
Re: purpose of group
Hi Shannon,
Andrew Lockie spoke at the NCH Conference held in Chicago back in 1994 - The Nourishment of Homeopathy: The Interface of Nutrition and Homeopathy.
He makes mention of the special diets in his Complete Guide to Homeopathy: The Principles & Practice of Treatment, pp. 228-229, and The Family Guide to Homeopathy, but no great details.
Kristy
Andrew Lockie spoke at the NCH Conference held in Chicago back in 1994 - The Nourishment of Homeopathy: The Interface of Nutrition and Homeopathy.
He makes mention of the special diets in his Complete Guide to Homeopathy: The Principles & Practice of Treatment, pp. 228-229, and The Family Guide to Homeopathy, but no great details.
Kristy
Re: purpose of group
I didnt mean off topic stuff I really meant people who refer you to a qualified Homeopath
for simple stuff and trying to scare you about homeopathy. The reply to my post about my cat is
a good example. I thought the purpose was to learn about homeopathy for yourself and
in complicated cases to contact a homeopath. Thanks for your reply.
JM
for simple stuff and trying to scare you about homeopathy. The reply to my post about my cat is
a good example. I thought the purpose was to learn about homeopathy for yourself and
in complicated cases to contact a homeopath. Thanks for your reply.
JM