Unfortunately this is problem one encounters regardless of what the diseased
state is.
Three cases that I can remember only had one follow up and that was it, I
didn't hear from them for some months but the news was always good. One case
never came back, and one took over a year to stabilise. So the time line
overall, without checking details of the cases are all about and within one
year. But in an ideal world I would want things to be improving after at
least 3 menstrual cycles (or 3 months if they are not having periods) - that
is a good time to reassess I my opinion.
Best, Joy
www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 11/5/03 10:57 PM, Suriya at suriyak56@time.net.my wrote:
Joy Lucas wrote:
Dear Joy
Can you give me a time frame , how long did it take to treat such cases?
I think my problem is that many do not come back for follow up and I m
not sure if it is because they are better or what!
regards
Suriya
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome
-
Lynn Lammer
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome
Hi Robyn,
*Very* interesting, and I thank you for sharing it!
I think that this sort of airing of "differing" methods and experiences of
very experienced and very well trained homeopaths is just exactly what we
need to do more of, and more freely (which is one part of why IMO we -- nas
a group and community -- need to get really good at conducting disagreements
in a respectful way -- a PS, since disagreement is not my purpose here).
I'm remembering that maybe 10+ years back someone -- some very classically
trained homeopath -- was musing about experiences of a colleague of his
(also very classical), who had been studying homeopathy in India, and saw
cures that astounded him. He came back eager to share what he had seen, but
was quickly shunned by most of his collegues, because the cures he described
involved frequently repeated doses of high potencies. Probably just like
what you're describing, Robyn!
He described cures that amazed him, of various very resistant and serious
diseases and thought his colleagues would be as excited as he was to learn
how this had been done -- but as soon as they heard about the posology, they
didn't want to hear any more and wanted him to stop talking about it! I
wish I could remember his name, to find out what he'd done with that. So
interesting...
Below:
on 11/6/03 2:12 AM, Robyn at folco@tpg.com.au wrote:
What is your clue when it's time to reduce frequency?
What does the patient feel from the remedy -- on those cases where you have
used it, did the patient feel "the usual" benefits such as improved M/E,
energy, etc., or is the benefit strictly related to reducing hair?
Personally, I hope you will share more about this with us. I would love to
hear things such as, What sorts of cases you have used the method on (I
would assume on cases which have not responded well to "regular"
prescribing, or which in your experience are not likely to)? How quick and
thorough the response was, and if you do come on any negative results or
reasons for caution, or "wisdom of hindsight" situations.
Oops, context alert!
Hahnemann made that remark in 6th edition, very
specifically with reference to LM dosing. (Was it also in 5th, re Cs in
water dose?) But you have not mentioned using either LMs or water doses
with this method, so I think it is *quite* inappropriate and misleading to
use this quote here!!! Am I missing something?
Again, unless I'm mistaken, this applied *only* to LMs and/or water doses,
not a re-thinking of dry dose rules. What is your understanding? (I don't
have a 4th ed. to check against it, unfortunately.)
While one couldn't disagree that he continued "changing the conclusions"
(aka "continually refining his method"), I don't think the above quotes mean
that he had no "rules" for repetition. Before developing liquid dose, the
rule was, not until the prior dose has ceased its action, hence the term
"watch and wait" prescribing (4th edition).
With liquid prescribing I am not sure sure, as I've seen quite a range --
from David Little's "minimalist" approach, where you see how long each dose
holds, then plan to re-dose just before it would start to wear off -- to
very "enthusiastic" twice-a-day-and-thrice-on-Sundays (tongue in cheek,
except for the twice-a-day part). I'm still unclear what the advantages
would be to one approach over the other -- except I did have one prescriber
who wanted me to take *more* (LM) doses if an agg happened, which seems
darned counter-intuitive to me! (Anyone have experience with that???)
I think the important point is, "based on the condition and stages of the
disease" -- this I think is consistent with "usual practice", except it's
not been "usual" to repeat high potencies that often in a chronic case, at
least not among homeopaths that I've trained and worked with. And that's
the aspect that I find so very interesting in your write-up!
Thanks, I'll try to get a look at that.
Can you say a bit about what you find to be the special strengths and
usefulness of this mat. med.?
Thanks so much!
Shannon
*Very* interesting, and I thank you for sharing it!
I think that this sort of airing of "differing" methods and experiences of
very experienced and very well trained homeopaths is just exactly what we
need to do more of, and more freely (which is one part of why IMO we -- nas
a group and community -- need to get really good at conducting disagreements
in a respectful way -- a PS, since disagreement is not my purpose here).
I'm remembering that maybe 10+ years back someone -- some very classically
trained homeopath -- was musing about experiences of a colleague of his
(also very classical), who had been studying homeopathy in India, and saw
cures that astounded him. He came back eager to share what he had seen, but
was quickly shunned by most of his collegues, because the cures he described
involved frequently repeated doses of high potencies. Probably just like
what you're describing, Robyn!
He described cures that amazed him, of various very resistant and serious
diseases and thought his colleagues would be as excited as he was to learn
how this had been done -- but as soon as they heard about the posology, they
didn't want to hear any more and wanted him to stop talking about it! I
wish I could remember his name, to find out what he'd done with that. So
interesting...
Below:
on 11/6/03 2:12 AM, Robyn at folco@tpg.com.au wrote:
What is your clue when it's time to reduce frequency?
What does the patient feel from the remedy -- on those cases where you have
used it, did the patient feel "the usual" benefits such as improved M/E,
energy, etc., or is the benefit strictly related to reducing hair?
Personally, I hope you will share more about this with us. I would love to
hear things such as, What sorts of cases you have used the method on (I
would assume on cases which have not responded well to "regular"
prescribing, or which in your experience are not likely to)? How quick and
thorough the response was, and if you do come on any negative results or
reasons for caution, or "wisdom of hindsight" situations.
Oops, context alert!
Hahnemann made that remark in 6th edition, veryspecifically with reference to LM dosing. (Was it also in 5th, re Cs in
water dose?) But you have not mentioned using either LMs or water doses
with this method, so I think it is *quite* inappropriate and misleading to
use this quote here!!! Am I missing something?
Again, unless I'm mistaken, this applied *only* to LMs and/or water doses,
not a re-thinking of dry dose rules. What is your understanding? (I don't
have a 4th ed. to check against it, unfortunately.)
While one couldn't disagree that he continued "changing the conclusions"
(aka "continually refining his method"), I don't think the above quotes mean
that he had no "rules" for repetition. Before developing liquid dose, the
rule was, not until the prior dose has ceased its action, hence the term
"watch and wait" prescribing (4th edition).
With liquid prescribing I am not sure sure, as I've seen quite a range --
from David Little's "minimalist" approach, where you see how long each dose
holds, then plan to re-dose just before it would start to wear off -- to
very "enthusiastic" twice-a-day-and-thrice-on-Sundays (tongue in cheek,
except for the twice-a-day part). I'm still unclear what the advantages
would be to one approach over the other -- except I did have one prescriber
who wanted me to take *more* (LM) doses if an agg happened, which seems
darned counter-intuitive to me! (Anyone have experience with that???)
I think the important point is, "based on the condition and stages of the
disease" -- this I think is consistent with "usual practice", except it's
not been "usual" to repeat high potencies that often in a chronic case, at
least not among homeopaths that I've trained and worked with. And that's
the aspect that I find so very interesting in your write-up!
Thanks, I'll try to get a look at that.
Can you say a bit about what you find to be the special strengths and
usefulness of this mat. med.?
Thanks so much!
Shannon