Joy Lucas wrote:
Dear Joy,
It was not my intention to be negative towards your interest in this.
I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I welcome any interest in this area.
I often get the feeling that mine is a lone voice in fighting this
illness, and I wish more homeopaths would tackle it. There is a sadly
long list of victims growing ever longer, and I can only see the tip of
the iceberg myself.
My rejection of Sulph and Apis as likely remedies for the effusive
form of FIP is based on experience of over 300 cases. Sulph or Apis used
to be tried by other homeopaths for FIP per write-ups I have seen such
as in veterinary homeopathy tutor texts - before there was understanding
of what is involved.
[So far never with any success with those remedies that I can find. In
fact I have a hard time finding anyone anywhere with success in this
illness. If anyone here knows of it please let me know a contact so we
can swap notes and learn from it.]
My point was that those remedies are not typically representative of
the disease at hand. So while it is valid to repertorize every case and
I consider that essential no matter how much "gut feel" I have for a
remedy in a case - I do not see Sulph or Apis as likely at all, (though
they are most commonly suggested by other homeopaths) in that the root
cause of the problem is part of that repertorizing and I can not imagine
a case where Apis or sulph would cover those causes, and have not seen a
case so far that has those remedies anywhere near the short list for
finding simillimum. So I believe "looking at them" can only be
misleading here.
I CAN foresee a situation in which a cat might be a constitutional type
of Apis or Sulph - in which case it can be appropriate to add in the
remedy as sort of background support - in addition to the use of the
simillimum.
Of course I may be wrong. Perhaps one day I shall find an effusive FIP
case which repertorizes as Sulph or Apis, which then I would use - but I
can not foresee it, and even if it were the next case, it would
represent less than a third of a percentage point of cases.
My intention in rejecting them then, was more to try to steer
thought on this illness towards remedies that match the pathology and
root cause of the illness rather than to remedies that match the name
which is a misnomer, or the fluid effusion without knowing its *cause*
and origin.
It is my belief that I do not hear of other homeopaths with success
in effusive FIP mainly because they are not matching the true pathology
and ARE using the misleading name and visible effusion without regard to
causes. I think this is a common mistake many homeopaths make - to fail
to properly understand the pathology of a disease they are seeing, and
to use only superficially visible information.
I saw this list discussion as an opportunity to change that thinking
towards *more* successes in this awful illness. I try to do that any
place I can, as I would love to see an impact on the disease survival
rate more widely than just in my practise.
So that was my motivation in writing as I did. I hoped to provide useful
insight into repping for this illness.
Namaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."