When provided with the following info about homeopathic remedies useful in stuttering,
Homeopathic medicines for stuttering
* Belladonna - rapid and interrupted speech; insecure and anxious child.
* Causticum - stutters when anxious, stuttering accompanied by bedwetting or tics (Stramonium); paralysis of the vocal cords; tendency to hoarseness and dry cough.
* Cuprum metallicum - stuttering due to muscle spasms; hiccough preceding the spasms; abdominal colics.
* Mercurius solubilis - agitated after being asked a question; stuttering due to hesitancy; hyperactive child.
* Natrum muriaticum - late learning to talk; introvert, taciturn child; wants to play on his own.
* Stramonium is the most commonly prescribed medicine for stammering. Stuttering often starts after a fright with difficulty starting a word or phrase. Stuttering accompanied by body or facial movements(tics) or bedwetting; violent nature.
http://www.homeopathytoday.net/spip.php?article75
A skeptic replied that shouldn't they stutter when taking these remedies since "like cures like"?
Haven't checked if stuttering is a rubric in any of the provings though I wouldn't expect one to stutter from these remedies unless they were predisposed and proved the remedy.
What are some proper responses for this skeptic as it is a valid question?
Susan
A Skeptic Asks...
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: A Skeptic Asks...
Yes we can assume that the remedies in the "stuttering" rubrics, are ones that have either (a) produced that symptom *during a proving* -- which by definition means during *overdose* -- or, depending on the repertory being consulted, (b) been found to cure that symptom (clinical symptom). And yes, even during a proving, symptoms are produced only by people who are "susceptible" to the remedy and to the symptom.
Does that answer it for you?
Shannon
Does that answer it for you?
Shannon
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: A Skeptic Asks...
From: Susan
Sent: 13 May 2014 13:52
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] A Skeptic Asks...
Hi Shannon,
Thanks for your reply.
Stuttering is not a rubric listed in Kent's Repertory in the index.
Stammering is under Mouth/Speech, difficult.
Stammering is quite different from stuttering though maybe back then that's the word used to describe both.
The remedies suggested in the article are only the BOLD ones in Kent, more are italics and standard.
I didn't know exactly how a proving is done, that it can be a forced overdose or for some reaching their own personal tolerance or threshold. I know I only proved some remedies from a few water doses or after many 200C dry doses.
I checked and found the European Central Council of Homeopath's guidelines, below
http://www.homeopathy-ecch.org/content/view/24/41/
It can be difficult to simply explain to a hard core skeptic the nuances of homeopathy without causing further skepticism!
Susan
Potency
It is recommended to test using 2-3 potencies to ensure that as many and as much of the more
subtle aspects of the remedy can be explored.
Remedy taking
The dosage method should be clearly determined prior to beginning the proving.
Recommended dosage – one to six doses (up to three times a day).
Medication should be stopped as soon as clear symptoms develop.
It is highly recommended that the supervisor be involved in determining initial
symptoms.
It has been observed that taking further doses after the initial symptoms develop may
confuse the symptom picture and even pose a safety hazard. Therefore careful
observation and sound judgement is needed at this phase.
Sent: 13 May 2014 13:52
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] A Skeptic Asks...
Hi Shannon,
Thanks for your reply.
Stuttering is not a rubric listed in Kent's Repertory in the index.
Stammering is under Mouth/Speech, difficult.
Stammering is quite different from stuttering though maybe back then that's the word used to describe both.
The remedies suggested in the article are only the BOLD ones in Kent, more are italics and standard.
I didn't know exactly how a proving is done, that it can be a forced overdose or for some reaching their own personal tolerance or threshold. I know I only proved some remedies from a few water doses or after many 200C dry doses.
I checked and found the European Central Council of Homeopath's guidelines, below
http://www.homeopathy-ecch.org/content/view/24/41/
It can be difficult to simply explain to a hard core skeptic the nuances of homeopathy without causing further skepticism!
Susan
Potency
It is recommended to test using 2-3 potencies to ensure that as many and as much of the more
subtle aspects of the remedy can be explored.
Remedy taking
The dosage method should be clearly determined prior to beginning the proving.
Recommended dosage – one to six doses (up to three times a day).
Medication should be stopped as soon as clear symptoms develop.
It is highly recommended that the supervisor be involved in determining initial
symptoms.
It has been observed that taking further doses after the initial symptoms develop may
confuse the symptom picture and even pose a safety hazard. Therefore careful
observation and sound judgement is needed at this phase.
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: A Skeptic Asks...
I think that the most straightforward accurate answer may be "Yes, it may, if the patient is highly sensitive to that medicine and the dose is given sufficiently frequently to induce overt symptoms".
The justified appearance of remedies for stammering (in many contexts, a synonym for stuttering) in Kent's repertory arises from the symptom's elicitation in a proving.
Kent's approach to the weight of the typeface, as I understand it, is that the medicine becomes a bold type under a rubric only once the symptom has arisen in a proving of that medicine and the medicine has removed it. The roman and italic weights indicate that it has arisen in a proving (italic indicating that it has done so rather commonly).
To many minds, removal of a symptom by the medicine acts to "verify" that the medicine was validly listed as having produced it; hence the emphasis of bold type upon medicines in that position. This interpretation of cure as verification arose, though, only through failure to appreciate the implications of three necessities:
• that a medicine is capable of removing more (not fewer) symptoms than it can cause, meaning that only a proving could confirm the suspicion that a medicine's successful removal of a symptom was due to homoeopathicity;
• that a medicine capable of removing a symptom in one patient may nevertheless fail to do so in patients for whom it is entirely suitable; and
• that homoeopathic indications, in order to be homoeopathic, must consist in symptoms that the medicine has caused (not those it has "cured").
There exist, of course, extensions of these symptoms, by means of which we use clever guesswork to prescribe, for instance, medicines capable of causing burning sensations in burns trauma. Such a prescription, we should recognise, is not strictly homoeopathic -- the medicine has not caused an actual burn in the healthy -- but has taken a sideways step via the use of analogy. That's a fine example of the intelligent guesswork that we employ -- or that others employed and we follow -- in choosing the medicine that appears to be best capable of mimicking the patient's state; a fine example of the use of other tools in conjunction with homoeopathy. As long as we don't mistake these other tools for homoeopathy, we can do fine work and communicate what homoeopathy is (and what it is not) without unnecessary confusion.
Cheers!
John
The justified appearance of remedies for stammering (in many contexts, a synonym for stuttering) in Kent's repertory arises from the symptom's elicitation in a proving.
Kent's approach to the weight of the typeface, as I understand it, is that the medicine becomes a bold type under a rubric only once the symptom has arisen in a proving of that medicine and the medicine has removed it. The roman and italic weights indicate that it has arisen in a proving (italic indicating that it has done so rather commonly).
To many minds, removal of a symptom by the medicine acts to "verify" that the medicine was validly listed as having produced it; hence the emphasis of bold type upon medicines in that position. This interpretation of cure as verification arose, though, only through failure to appreciate the implications of three necessities:
• that a medicine is capable of removing more (not fewer) symptoms than it can cause, meaning that only a proving could confirm the suspicion that a medicine's successful removal of a symptom was due to homoeopathicity;
• that a medicine capable of removing a symptom in one patient may nevertheless fail to do so in patients for whom it is entirely suitable; and
• that homoeopathic indications, in order to be homoeopathic, must consist in symptoms that the medicine has caused (not those it has "cured").
There exist, of course, extensions of these symptoms, by means of which we use clever guesswork to prescribe, for instance, medicines capable of causing burning sensations in burns trauma. Such a prescription, we should recognise, is not strictly homoeopathic -- the medicine has not caused an actual burn in the healthy -- but has taken a sideways step via the use of analogy. That's a fine example of the intelligent guesswork that we employ -- or that others employed and we follow -- in choosing the medicine that appears to be best capable of mimicking the patient's state; a fine example of the use of other tools in conjunction with homoeopathy. As long as we don't mistake these other tools for homoeopathy, we can do fine work and communicate what homoeopathy is (and what it is not) without unnecessary confusion.
Cheers!
John
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: A Skeptic Asks...
Hi, Susan --
You're very welcome. Yes, from the first paragraph you quoted, it appears that Kent himself may have gone some way down the slippery slope of including a remedy under a particular merely because it had successfully removed it -- muddying the otherwise clear reason for a substance's inclusion under any rubric as he expressed it in the final paragraph. (Certainly he makes the same mistake in his materia medica, which, though terrific as a mnemonic device for coming to know the character of remedies, is less useful in confirming a remedy's aptness to a particular patient's illness.)
This was one strong reason for a fresh start on creating repertories that, even if they usually did incorporate information of the same (clinical) origin (for fear of looking less complete than a competing repertory), at least allow the meticulous user to distinguish the source of the information.
It's also a great reason to always refer back to (pure) materia medica, the best of which (e.g. Clarke's Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica and Julian's Materia Medica of New Homoeopathic Remedies) fairly clearly distinguish truly homoeopathic indications (those that guide to homoeopathic use by their production in pathogenetic trials) from symptoms of clinical origin, so-called "cured" symptoms (removed either enantiopathically, i.e. by opposition; homoeosuppressively, i.e. by forcing the organism to respond to repeated doses of a substance similar only to a portion of the case; or curatively, and irrelevant to homoeopathic prescription in any of these cases).
The BIG TYPE you referred to: this was all caps? I don't think Kent used that convention, but it's one that some other repertories use. I forget just what it represents.
Cheers --
John
You're very welcome. Yes, from the first paragraph you quoted, it appears that Kent himself may have gone some way down the slippery slope of including a remedy under a particular merely because it had successfully removed it -- muddying the otherwise clear reason for a substance's inclusion under any rubric as he expressed it in the final paragraph. (Certainly he makes the same mistake in his materia medica, which, though terrific as a mnemonic device for coming to know the character of remedies, is less useful in confirming a remedy's aptness to a particular patient's illness.)
This was one strong reason for a fresh start on creating repertories that, even if they usually did incorporate information of the same (clinical) origin (for fear of looking less complete than a competing repertory), at least allow the meticulous user to distinguish the source of the information.
It's also a great reason to always refer back to (pure) materia medica, the best of which (e.g. Clarke's Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica and Julian's Materia Medica of New Homoeopathic Remedies) fairly clearly distinguish truly homoeopathic indications (those that guide to homoeopathic use by their production in pathogenetic trials) from symptoms of clinical origin, so-called "cured" symptoms (removed either enantiopathically, i.e. by opposition; homoeosuppressively, i.e. by forcing the organism to respond to repeated doses of a substance similar only to a portion of the case; or curatively, and irrelevant to homoeopathic prescription in any of these cases).
The BIG TYPE you referred to: this was all caps? I don't think Kent used that convention, but it's one that some other repertories use. I forget just what it represents.
Cheers --
John
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: A Skeptic Asks...
But if I remember right, Hahnemann also considered this acceptable; to be noted as clinical, but acceptable. Can anyone confirm or correct my memory on that?
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: A Skeptic Asks...
Hi, Shannon --
Well, any guesswork is acceptable, as long as we don't mistake one for the other (i.e., guesswork for homoeopathy). Guesswork is a valuable adjunct to any medical practice, including homoeopathy; we'd be foolish to forever fall into the trap of mistaking it for a valid part of the homeopathic method, though.
To add to your point, Hahnemann himself recommended Causticum in suitable cases of burns. And to reiterate mine, that does nothing to alter the nature of homoeopathy.
Cheers!
John
Well, any guesswork is acceptable, as long as we don't mistake one for the other (i.e., guesswork for homoeopathy). Guesswork is a valuable adjunct to any medical practice, including homoeopathy; we'd be foolish to forever fall into the trap of mistaking it for a valid part of the homeopathic method, though.
To add to your point, Hahnemann himself recommended Causticum in suitable cases of burns. And to reiterate mine, that does nothing to alter the nature of homoeopathy.
Cheers!
John
-
healthinfo6
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:00 pm
Re: A Skeptic Asks...
Hi John,
Thanks for the thought provoking info and keeping us on the classical topic!
You forced me to reread the small print in Kent's Repertory. It's always wise to go back to the classics from time to time to fully grasp ideas in a brighter light when you've advanced to accept the gifts that these timeless gems reward us with.
In the How To Use The Repertory section, Kent uses writer's cramp as an example to show how best to repertorize using Generalities.
Kent wrote, "Furthermore, after cures have been made with remedies selected in this way, such remedies may be added to the scanty list of particulars first referred to, and in this manner will our Repertory grow into usefulness. This is the legitimate use of clinical symptoms. ..."
Just before this example, Kent wrote
"From an extensive correspondence and many years of teaching graduates, I have come to the conclusion that it is a difficult manner for many to know when the record of symptoms contains the possibilities of a curative prescription. Many cases are presented with no generals and no mental symptoms - absolutely no characterizing symptoms - only the symptoms common to sickness, When a successful prescription is made on such symptoms it is scarcely more than a "lucky hit." It cannot be classed as scientific prescribing. Many records are presented with pages of vague description and one keynote that has served as a disgraceful "stool pigeon" to call forth a failure from many doctors.
Unless the symptoms that characterize the patient are brought out in the record the physician should not be surprised at a failure. The remedy must be similar to the symptoms of the patient as well as the pathognomonic symptoms of his disease in order to cure."
I couldn't find any mention of typeface weighting derivation, more references to them and elsewhere mention of BIG TYPE rubrics corresponding to BIG TYPE print.
Best,
Susan
Thanks for the thought provoking info and keeping us on the classical topic!
You forced me to reread the small print in Kent's Repertory. It's always wise to go back to the classics from time to time to fully grasp ideas in a brighter light when you've advanced to accept the gifts that these timeless gems reward us with.
In the How To Use The Repertory section, Kent uses writer's cramp as an example to show how best to repertorize using Generalities.
Kent wrote, "Furthermore, after cures have been made with remedies selected in this way, such remedies may be added to the scanty list of particulars first referred to, and in this manner will our Repertory grow into usefulness. This is the legitimate use of clinical symptoms. ..."
Just before this example, Kent wrote
"From an extensive correspondence and many years of teaching graduates, I have come to the conclusion that it is a difficult manner for many to know when the record of symptoms contains the possibilities of a curative prescription. Many cases are presented with no generals and no mental symptoms - absolutely no characterizing symptoms - only the symptoms common to sickness, When a successful prescription is made on such symptoms it is scarcely more than a "lucky hit." It cannot be classed as scientific prescribing. Many records are presented with pages of vague description and one keynote that has served as a disgraceful "stool pigeon" to call forth a failure from many doctors.
Unless the symptoms that characterize the patient are brought out in the record the physician should not be surprised at a failure. The remedy must be similar to the symptoms of the patient as well as the pathognomonic symptoms of his disease in order to cure."
I couldn't find any mention of typeface weighting derivation, more references to them and elsewhere mention of BIG TYPE rubrics corresponding to BIG TYPE print.
Best,
Susan
-
healthinfo6
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:00 pm
Re: A Skeptic Asks...
Hi Shannon,
Thanks for your reply.
Stuttering is not a rubric listed in Kent's Repertory in the index.
Stammering is under Mouth/Speech, difficult.
Stammering is quite different from stuttering though maybe back then that's the word used to describe both.
The remedies suggested in the article are only the BOLD ones in Kent, more are italics and standard.
I didn't know exactly how a proving is done, that it can be a forced overdose or for some reaching their own personal tolerance or threshold. I know I only proved some remedies from a few water doses or after many 200C dry doses.
I checked and found the European Central Council of Homeopath's guidelines, below
http://www.homeopathy-ecch.org/content/view/24/41/
It can be difficult to simply explain to a hard core skeptic the nuances of homeopathy without causing further skepticism!
Susan
Potency
It is recommended to test using 2-3 potencies to ensure that as many and as much of the more
subtle aspects of the remedy can be explored.
Remedy taking
* The dosage method should be clearly determined prior to beginning the proving.
* Recommended dosage – one to six doses (up to three times a day).
* Medication should be stopped as soon as clear symptoms develop.
* It is highly recommended that the supervisor be involved in determining initial
symptoms.
* It has been observed that taking further doses after the initial symptoms develop may
confuse the symptom picture and even pose a safety hazard. Therefore careful
observation and sound judgement is needed at this phase.
Thanks for your reply.
Stuttering is not a rubric listed in Kent's Repertory in the index.
Stammering is under Mouth/Speech, difficult.
Stammering is quite different from stuttering though maybe back then that's the word used to describe both.
The remedies suggested in the article are only the BOLD ones in Kent, more are italics and standard.
I didn't know exactly how a proving is done, that it can be a forced overdose or for some reaching their own personal tolerance or threshold. I know I only proved some remedies from a few water doses or after many 200C dry doses.
I checked and found the European Central Council of Homeopath's guidelines, below
http://www.homeopathy-ecch.org/content/view/24/41/
It can be difficult to simply explain to a hard core skeptic the nuances of homeopathy without causing further skepticism!
Susan
Potency
It is recommended to test using 2-3 potencies to ensure that as many and as much of the more
subtle aspects of the remedy can be explored.
Remedy taking
* The dosage method should be clearly determined prior to beginning the proving.
* Recommended dosage – one to six doses (up to three times a day).
* Medication should be stopped as soon as clear symptoms develop.
* It is highly recommended that the supervisor be involved in determining initial
symptoms.
* It has been observed that taking further doses after the initial symptoms develop may
confuse the symptom picture and even pose a safety hazard. Therefore careful
observation and sound judgement is needed at this phase.
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: A Skeptic Asks...
Thanks Susan,
I'll have to wait until later to read the article, but I think my answer would be the same… *Whatever* symptom is being discussed, yes, if it can cure, then it can also cause.
And if it can cause, then it can also cure.
That is one of the bases of homeopathy!
But "can" is not the same as "will." Usually we do *not* develop proving symptoms from the remedy we're taking, especially not if it's well=indicated, and taken in appropriate dosage regimen.
As far as explaining homeopathy and its nuances to a "hard core skeptic", if they don't want to hear, then they won't. If they want to explore the possibilities, then let them ask -- and read, and think, and maybe even try....
)
Shannon
I'll have to wait until later to read the article, but I think my answer would be the same… *Whatever* symptom is being discussed, yes, if it can cure, then it can also cause.
And if it can cause, then it can also cure.
That is one of the bases of homeopathy!
But "can" is not the same as "will." Usually we do *not* develop proving symptoms from the remedy we're taking, especially not if it's well=indicated, and taken in appropriate dosage regimen.
As far as explaining homeopathy and its nuances to a "hard core skeptic", if they don't want to hear, then they won't. If they want to explore the possibilities, then let them ask -- and read, and think, and maybe even try....
)Shannon