Minutus

if you

Diagnosis whether it helps in selecting the remedy or not, definitely
helps in assessing the condition and prognosis. We as homeopaths are
safe now since most of the conditions we treat have been already
diagnosed and so when you get the patient all you need to do is google
and find about the condition. Still knowing about the pathology and
pathophysiology helps in understanding the symptoms, gives a context
for our prescribing. WHen you are looking for rare and peculiar how
would you know something is rare and peculiar if you do not know what
is common for a given condition and what is not?
Was that Holmes or someone who said "Homeopaths would treat a chinaman
for jaundice because his skin is yellow"? That is the reason we need
a context.
Hering's Guiding Symptoms has such a wealth of clinical material and
observations that even mentioning that you do not have to go by those
sounds absurd.

I understand that remedies are being chosen with pendulums, chakras,
face analysis, meditations etc. etc. Still any science is about
repeatability, verifiability by others. Using that measure none of the
other methods stand out.
What you are suggesting is throwing the baby and the bath tub out with
the bath water-
Show me even one sentence where Hahnemann said do not train as an MD
or where Hering made any comments like that. In fact Hahnemann had
suggested that all Homeopathy students go thru training and become MDs.

Hahnemann also talks about Asiatic cholera and scarlet fever etc.
when he talks about treating them. Once again it is not diagnosis but
the abuse of diagnosis that we need to protect against.

Diagnosis helps in case taking, managing the case, prognosis etc. We
might not want it to the same extent an allopath does ( since our
treatment does not depend on that solely) but it is important
nevertheless.

Why do you think we have clincal prescriber books by Clarke,
Lilienthal and also so many Physiological materia medica?
They may - at least it is harder for them. In medical school they are

I disagree-
It is not a handicap for the aforesaid reasons- it is a source of
knowledge that they carry - they need a change in perspective- they
need to understand that they need to go beyond the physical symptoms
and signs and get a gestalt- if you think about that even many
"classicals" do not get it...
Like who? How many? Even the ones who do not have medical knowledge
thru medical curriculum have become knowledgeable by self-study etc.
THey realize that one better understand what one is dealing with -
this is not palmistry or numerology -

You still need to deal with the somatic part of it even if you are so
adept at the psychic part of it...
No - just misunderstood everywhere...

Hahnemannian, what you are saying here is very true. So often, for
instance, patients say something is hurting when the source of the pain is
actually another organ or tissue. Understanding the diagnosis, the
physiology, the anatomy, the pathology helps to understand the process that
lies behind the symptoms and which ones are indeed common and which "rare
and peculiar." The better the homeopath can "target" the true symptoms and
signs, the better is the likelihood of finding a remedy that works
effectively. Indeed, I've often found that until the true picture is
understood clearly, the true simillimum will remain elusive. Knowing the
medical diagnoses, lab values, and clinical medical history of a patient is
immensely helpful in making this assessment.

Rosemary

Dear One,
Indeed a debatable topic 'imprtance of pathogy' in homoeopathy. If one goes thro' books of Bogger C.M.where he masterly manipulated [i.e.utelised] in selection of remedy. Modern reperories give scores of patological rubrics. These have been very nicely utelised by late Dr. P.Sakaran, late S.R.Phatak.Also one can find detail discussion of this in Dr. Jugal Kishore's
book Evolution of Repertory.Some examples : bleeding fibriods - Phos, Scar tissue - Graph,
Thiosinaminum, Acute bacillary dysentry Merc cor, traumatic hematoma Arnica etc. Even Ramakrishnan A.U's book on Cancer one will find similar examples.
Regards,
S.P.Chakravorty
India
Date 23.01.07.

hahnemannian2002 wrote:
if you

Diagnosis whether it helps in selecting the remedy or not, definitely
helps in assessing the condition and prognosis. We as homeopaths are
safe now since most of the conditions we treat have been already
diagnosed and so when you get the patient all you need to do is google
and find about the condition. Still knowing about the pathology and
pathophysiology helps in understanding the symptoms, gives a context
for our prescribing. WHen you are looking for rare and peculiar how
would you know something is rare and peculiar if you do not know what
is common for a given condition and what is not?
Was that Holmes or someone who said "Homeopaths would treat a chinaman
for jaundice because his skin is yellow"? That is the reason we need
a context.
Hering's Guiding Symptoms has such a wealth of clinical material and
observations that even mentioning that you do not have to go by those
sounds absurd.

I understand that remedies are being chosen with pendulums, chakras,
face analysis, meditations etc. etc. Still any science is about
repeatability, verifiability by others. Using that measure none of the
other methods stand out.
What you are suggesting is throwing the baby and the bath tub out with
the bath water-
Show me even one sentence where Hahnemann said do not train as an MD
or where Hering made any comments like that. In fact Hahnemann had
suggested that all Homeopathy students go thru training and become MDs.

Hahnemann also talks about Asiatic cholera and scarlet fever etc.
when he talks about treating them. Once again it is not diagnosis but
the abuse of diagnosis that we need to protect against.

Diagnosis helps in case taking, managing the case, prognosis etc. We
might not want it to the same extent an allopath does ( since our
treatment does not depend on that solely) but it is important
nevertheless.

Why do you think we have clincal prescriber books by Clarke,
Lilienthal and also so many Physiological materia medica?

They may - at least it is harder for them. In medical school they are

I disagree-
It is not a handicap for the aforesaid reasons- it is a source of
knowledge that they carry - they need a change in perspective- they
need to understand that they need to go beyond the physical symptoms
and signs and get a gestalt- if you think about that even many
"classicals" do not get it...
Like who? How many? Even the ones who do not have medical knowledge
thru medical curriculum have become knowledgeable by self-study etc.
THey realize that one better understand what one is dealing with -
this is not palmistry or numerology -

You still need to deal with the somatic part of it even if you are so
adept at the psychic part of it...
No - just misunderstood everywhere...
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi H.
Right. To each that what he can do best!

and so when you get the patient all you need to do is google

This is a misunderstanding of what Hahnemann said. He did not say:
rare and peculiar in a certain disease but rare and peculiar as
compared to general conditions that all or most diseases have in
common. This is made abundantly clear by the examples he gives.

What you say sounds absurd. The clinical conditions Hering gives in
his GS cannot by any straight logic be what MD's learn to-day. The
teaching has turned topsy-turvy since his day.
Science may be all that. Curing is a different matter. Patients do not
care (and should not) whether they are cured by scientific or
unscientific approach.

Read the preface to the Organon to find out what he thought about the
teachings of his day;-)

Is that the reason why he said: if he ever needed a homeopath himself
he would go to v. Boenninghausen? Or why he lauded to the hilt
Melanie's qualities as a homeopath?;-)

Btw: where did he say that? In what connection? Could it be that
otherwise they were not allowed to treat?:-)
Look at his suggestions fo the above diseases. Do the remedies cover
the common symptoms of these diseases or not? Does he anywhere say to
look for symptoms that are "rare and peculiar" in the specific
disease? Would not the general common picture of scarlet fever of that
day have its perfect image in Belladonna?

Once again it is not diagnosis but
All this is true for people who alone diagnose a patient.

Why do you think we have so many non-clinical materia medica?

Indeed?

I went with a friend to a consultation for her thyroid problems to a
world-authority of thyroid diseases. I asked a question about possible
involvement of the adrenal glands - (had a reason for it). He glared
at me: "I am specialized on thyroid, the adrenal glands do not concern
me!"

.

Like all of them.

Even the ones who do not have medical knowledge

Of that what was taught in their day. Which is different from what is
taught to-day.
V. Bönninghausen did not use palmistry or numerology. He used straight
classical homeopathy in taking his cases - without any medical
knowledge at all.

I cannot judge, because I know barely anything about the "psychic"
methods. Do you know them - or do you, like the allopaths, judge
without knowledge?
Yes - always by those who happen to have a different opinion from
one's own;-)

Regards

Luise

--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]