Minutus

Dear Irene

May I ask a favour?

So that the matter is clear and we have a better understanding of your point
of view, please advise the circumstances where you would advocate your way
of prescribing and the principles behind it.

Please demonstrate this by giving one or more of your cases and guide us
through your symptom and remedy selections and the thoughts behind them.

This would then give us an opportunity to discuss real cases and test our
systems.

This can then be a learning experience.

Rgds
Soroush

Funny you use that "wet paint" image........I remember TV shows where random people were walking past a freshly painted bench, bearing the sign "wet pain" and almost 100% touched it.
Same when you have a painful tooth, you know touching it with your tongue will hurt, yet you continue to do it.........
And how many of us, while growing, did not heed the warning of our parents "don't do this it is dangerous", to find out that our kids do the same.
So yes, we probably have to redo other people's mistakes to really learn, that is part of being human, experimenting.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Go to www.lulu.com/content/1103716 for my new book "The Handbook of Gemmotherapy"

and sometimes we have to redo our own - I remember somewhere in my teens cutting my finger with a razor blade ....so what did I do (can't believe I would do this let alone now telling the world) BUT I ran the blade across my other finger just to see how shapre it really was. May I redeem myself by saying I never did that again. Duhh
Bob
Funny you use that "wet paint" image........I remember TV shows where random people were walking past a freshly painted bench, bearing the sign "wet pain" and almost 100% touched it.
Same when you have a painful tooth, you know touching it with your tongue will hurt, yet you continue to do it.........
And how many of us, while growing, did not heed the warning of our parents "don't do this it is dangerous", to find out that our kids do the same.
So yes, we probably have to redo other people's mistakes to really learn, that is part of being human, experimenting.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Go to www.lulu.com/content/1103716 for my new book "The Handbook of Gemmotherapy"

Fran Sheffield wrote:
Ah but wait a minute -
Hahnemann often replaced his own careful experimental results and
recommendations with advances. For example he replaced dry dosing with
aqueous dosing.

Why would you assume that modern replacements (or especially additions
and expansions) would necessarily be a bad thing?

Why do you assume that those with an addition to make have not ALSO done
a great deal of work on the "addition"?

Let's be open-minded and look well at a suggestion for change or
enhancement and not dismiss it out of hand. We DO have far more complex
diseases to handle than Hahnemann did thanks to the every increasing
number of same that are caused by much more advanced and intensive
bungling of allopathy with their chemicals. We DO need more advanced
approaches to these more advanced problems - so it is wise to seek
answers rather than allow failures to cure due to increased disease
complexity or newer diseases not covered by past approaches.

As Hahnemann said - we aim to cure - that has to be number one (and it
is - aph1.) He does not say anywhere - "Make sure you do not make any
progress over what I discovered."

We just need to make sure it IS progress and that it achieves cure -
gently etc etc, as listed in Organon principles.
The principles may be fixed (as far as they go) but that does nto
preclude improved techniques to implement them nor new principles grown
from the others. Very oftenh combining principles leads to new ones
without violating the original ones - instead they are enhanced and
added to.

Care can be (and should be) taken to ensure that principles are not
violated, but that new ones can be added within the same or similar
paradigm. (Maybe being homeopathy, similar is not bad here.)
I'd advocate caution, common sense, creative thinking and cure as
relevant aspects of change. All the C's, you see

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."

Fran Sheffield wrote:

Fran:

But not including constitutional-type remedies as supportive matching
intercurrent remedy approach while using simillimum towards cure - which
is what I was using as an example to illustrate my point.
"In combination" is a vague term.
If you mean mixing them together - that was not suggested.
Using them each at a dosing rate appropriate to its use, and during the
SAME illness - was what I proposed:

Simillimum in my approach is always dosed according to classical rules
to do with life force strength, disease strength, potency selection etc.
The constitutional-type remedy is ALSO dosed by proper rules of homeopathy.
However the constitution is often stronger in energy than the bopdy
visa vis the disease it harbours - so that the constitutional remedy can
often be used at for example 200C (as it has a vibration so similar to
the body, that it is well accepted) where simillimuim (at least
initially) could only be used at perhaps 30C due to life force
constraints. The simillimum is a harder hitting remedy in disease states
than the constitutional-type remedy - perhaps because it has to undo
disease or perhaps because it is so alien to the usual type of the
individual - where the constitutional-type remedy need only be a
"crutch", and it aligns well with the individual's "norm".
Thus it's energy can sometimes be higher without risking aggravation.

Later in the course of disease, it may happen that the simillimum has
been taken higher - perhaps to 1M potency for example, in stages from 6C
or 12C or some such - but the constitutional-type remedy will then be
LESS necessary when the life force can tolerate simillimum at 1M - and
so the constitutional-typer remedy would not be increased in potency
beyond about 200C - but rather kept at a constant potency and with
*decreasing* frequency of dosing (in accordance with need) - tapering it
off as it becomes less necessary as a "crutch" the more the individual
heals and can handle higher potency simillimum remedy to overcome the
high potency disease.

"Crutch" constitutional-type remedy is only needed where the life force
of the individual is too weak to allow use of a remedy high enough in
potency to overcome the disease.

This above approach I use, follows standard homeopathy principles as
the disease is now closer to being overcome in light of the stronger
simillimum remedy at 1M and the stronger life force (which
constitutional-type remedy helped to achieve). In fact the use of the
constitutional-type remedy is what enabled the life force to arrive at a
strong enough level in a short enough time to use simillimum at higher
potency safely sooner in the illness (if at all!).
I found no such loss with the above approach - just the contrary.
My latest main frustration is that I can not always assess the
constitutional remedy - the repertories lack critical rubrics and in
many cases of illness the constitutional-type is very hard to assess.
It is greatly helped by experience especially of physical features - but
those especially are not yet documented in the repertory - we have a lot
of work to do still to make this approach more generally usable.
On the contrary - I generally have no problem knowing what animals are
indicating (it is evident from their behavior which "speaks" if one
"listens"), and it is my ability to perceive this that enables me to use
constitutional-type remedy appropriately in near-terminal cases to save
them. My choice to use constitutional-type remedy has nothing to do with
whether the animal can communicate to me (which is to do with choosing
simillimum mainly) and has everything to do with supporting a weak life
force in a terminal illness, to give the simillimum a better chance of
success.

It's not necessary in an ordinary case, as the life force is not
near terminal and does not need the "crutch" of the constitutional-type
remedy to allow it to "hang in there" while the simillimum does its
work. These are not the kind of cases where one can say - Oh well the
disease is strong and will need a 10M to cure so let's give a 10M. The
life force is perhaps at 6C not 10M and it will take time to get strong
enough to handle the 10M needed for cure - but perhaps the time is not
there as some animal chronic diseases are NOT slow-moving. The
constitutional-type remedy will be the crutch that achieves this "buying
of time" in such cases.
How would you propose to show this to be so?
Humans and animals have the came issues and respond to homeopathy by the
same principles. Can you show that a terminal human with a weak life
force would NOT be helped by a constitutional-type remedy while the
simillimum was used in accordance with proper prescribing?

I think you have made an assumption that you would not find true if you
tried to prove it.
Yes it introduces another variable - but that in itself is not a reason
to not add it
It is a variable that is managed by typical principles with which we are
familiar. The main difference is that one needs to assess an additional
remedy strength and dosing needed. The basic principles are the same -
assess the potency needed and asess the dosing needed - for the
constitutional-type remedy.
In the great majority of cases, a 200C will be appropriate, but in a
severely weak life force one might start 30C. More than 200c is not
needed I find - and that is logical as a life force that can handle its
own constitutional-type remedy at higher than 200C is not so weak it
can't manage simillimum at a decent potency.

The principles of selection (as I see them this evening off the cuff) are:
* This [constitutional-type matching remedy] is a "crutch" and one needs
to assess how much need there is for crutches (the lower the life force
the higher the need - similar to a broken leg, the worse the break the
more the need for crutches);
* One must assess how much crutch is needed (the more work the
simillimum has to do, the greater the need for crutches - so the longer
the leg break is expected to take to heal, the longer the need for
crutches);
ALSO the more dilute the simillimum needs to be - eg using dilution cups
in sensitive client - the more need there is for a crutch - as dilution
cup treatment is usually longer from beginning to cure so thus longer
need for crutch);
* Dose distance is important. If there is only small need for a crutch a
weekly dose may suffice - but if there is serious depletion of
constitutional-type features in the individual, a more frequent dose
will be needed, even daily. This can be assessed at Mind, General and
Specific levels too, with the objective of restoring normalcy and
balance to the individual's normal equilibrium beneath the disease - to
enable them to handle the disease state more readily.

These are just off the cuff suggested starter ideas to my current use -
I have not analysed how I choose the use and dosing - other than that it
is individualized based on experience and principles of homeopathy in
selection and dosing.

The idea is to enable the individual to "hold on" while simillimum is
used to build the life force to where it can take the potency of remedy
needed to overcome the disease. That is the over-riding principle.
I find it does the opposite - it clarifies treatment and often has
amazingly speedy and spectacular results where the prognosis at outset
was dire. There are clear principles - familiar ones to do with potency
selection and dosing selection - and it increases the survival statistics.
For the practitioner or the client?
The practitioner may like it simpler as it is "easier" to be simple. But
in this area simple gets a high percentage of dead clients. Using a
crutch while healing a broken leg is indeed more complex than trying to
heal the leg without crutches - but does that make simpler better?
I think not.
The cure is aphorism one - and just like a broken leg - that may NEED
crutches to lead to a successful healing.
As I see it - One has to assess this not from an "is it simple for the
practitioner" perspective - but from a "does this lead to a gentle cure"
perspective.

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."

Dear Colleagues & Irene

I have nothing against progress. It is essential for mankind's survival.
But experience shows daily that what is promoted as 'progress' is not the
real thing.

For those that are advocating an addition or change to the principles of
homoeopathy, it essential for them to demonstrate that with FULL
UNDERSTANDING they have tried Hn's approach and it has failed.

In all the exchanges that I have read on why Combos, no one has stated that
I saw this case, it was like this; on this basis I gave this remedy and it
did not work.
(we can then check to see if we agree with their approach and conclusions)
and then I tried this method and see it worked.

I agree that our patients are sicker than at the time of Hn. But I have not
seen evidence that there is a need for combos (remedies mixed together) or
the introduction of a new remedy whilst the action of the first is not
complete.

Irene seems to be criticising Hn for making the advance of going from dry
doses to water doses. He experimented and found better results. No harm
done!
He changed his ideas from Org 1 to Org 6. (He probably would have changed
Org 6 if he had had access to a word processor). But in my view, you need
to be up to his calibre to change his instructions.

Of course there may be better ways of prescribing - but what I am saying is
that until we have learnt fully the basics, it would be too early to change
them.

I use as my example someone like Sheilagh Creasy who has been in practice
and teaching for probably for more than 55 years. She still keeps to the
Organon and repertorises EVERY case. There is no room for guess work. How
is it that she has not found reason to use combinations? Because she knows
her MM and can differentiate amongst them.

Lastly, a homoeopath who refuses to open his eyes, by definition is a poor
observer and cannot be 'an unprejudiced observer'.

Rgds
Soroush

Hi Soroush,
Not really. The old masters themselves did this for us.

Hahnemann had many failures. V. Boenninghausen started with single
remedies and in the course of gathering experience more and more
changed to using 2 to more(up to five I have found) in pre-set
sequences. Obviously he was not satisfied with the resultsof the
single remedy approach. Once in a while he would give just one - so
he kept trying out this single-remedy approach at higher level of
experience - but he never returned to it. So even at his level of
experience after decades of a very busy practice he seems to have
found his sequence report worked better for him - and I must say I do
find his rate of cure, as evidenced by his case histories, very
impressive.

Quite a few of to-day's homeopaths turned to e.g. Sehgal after years
and decades of the classical method and never returned to it.

By this I do not mean to do any rating of the methods. What little
homeopathy I do, I do the "classical" way, the reason being that this
is what I know best. However, if I did more or a lot of treating I
would really try and find out the principles on which v.
Boenninghausen chose his sequences - as first prescription and as
follow-up prescription. I might also attempt to try out Irene's
approach - not just for terminal illness but generally - on the basis
of the "Vienna School" (constitutional prescribing - Professor Dorcsi
is the best-known representative). I should also try out the French
approach, which works a lot with Nosodes. And probably Sehgal. -- and
then stick to what I found works best for me. AND I would publish my
reasons for doing so.

It is really very unfortunate that v. Boenninghausen never seems to
have published anything to explain the method he actually worked with
and his reasons for doing so. (I am not saying the used "combos" - we
are not just talking about them). But I hoope that homeopaths with
more experience will analyse his case histories and find out the
principles and reasons behind it. This is why I am spending a lot of
time copying them and publishing the copies to be accessible for every
one.

So far this will be restricted to people who can read to understand
German - just as the teachings of the Vienna School and the wealth of
knowledge in the published Hahnemann case books is restricted to
homeopaths who know German (and French in the case of the Paris
ones).

But may-be some day there will be enough interest on the part of the
English speaking homepaths to see to it that the above will get
translated into English for global benefit.

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 <==========

Dear Luise

Is there not a major difference?
Firstly, probably V. Boenninghausen's knowledge was not as great as Hn's.
Secondly, they were working with some 80-90 remedies.

We now have lots more remedies properly proved. This should give us a
greater chance of finding the Similimum.

Rgds
Soroush

Finrod wrote:

Dear Soroush,
We are in agreement here:-)
Actually it shows both. Some things promoted are real progress - for
example the change to say the world is not flat and for example using
aqueous over dry - and for example using an approach that cures over one
that results in death (as in my cases I have been sharing!) ....
..... and other things are not real progress. So it is not reasonable
to generalise and suggest all progress is not the real thing as your
writing above implies.
Each case needs to be seen on its merits.
I do not agree.
There is a saying "Many roads lead to Rome" - which is to say that there
may be more than one good way of doing something. Showing that "Hn's
approach" failed is one option but not the only option to show progress
is needed another way.
I submit that to show a significantly higher success rate in cases
(in my case over 350 cases, which is statistically significant) is also
an option and a good reason to advocate change - especially if there is
a logical reason behind it. (Hn has logic as well as results behind his
approach.) To me it is perfectly logical that a constitutional-type
remedy individually matched to the individual, has the ability to
support and strengthen that individual and at least make it possible for
that individual to withstand illness with less stress and thus faster or
easier cure.
I disagree. For example in my work I have pointed out that in over 350
cases of FIP the majority died initially. Before there was even one
cure, I had to adjust my approach at least somewhat (specifically by
pre-empting symptoms.) Still the majority died - but at least there was
a little success for the first time. I also pointed out that no other
homeopath can be found to date who has even ONE cure of FIP.
Adding constitutional-type remedy (in the cases where I can determine it
with confidence) has greatly increased the success rate so that it is
now about 50%.
From zero percent to more than 50% in previously 100% incurable cases,
is in my book a good reason to enhance the approach.
There's no way I would now "use a case to demonstrate that Hn's method
alone does not work" and just let the cat die!
If Hn's method worked for effusive FIP, we'd have seen many cures
before the changes I made. I have challenged the more than 200
homeopaths on this list to find one case of cured effusive FIP by pure
Hn, and nobody could do it? Not me either and I have had success in a
lot of strange and weird situations with pure Hn methods. I am not
diparaging "pure Hn approach" - it is wonderful - but improvements are
more wonderful:-)
Whether you wish to try what I have found helpful is an individual
choice - I only offer it here as a finding that has saved many lives to
date which otherwise would have been lost. I consider that sufficient
success to want to share it so others have a choice to also benefit from
what I found. If they do not wish to benefit - that is also a choice.
Mixing remedies was not advocated.
Every remedy I use is individually chosen. Once in a blue moon - too
seldom to consider - they have been given mixed together in
circumstances where there was no choice for practical reasons, such as
that it was that or nothing for timing reasons. I explained these
exceptional cases and as they are the rare exception they are not
relevant to this discussion. HOWEVER that approach of dosing works just
the same way as if the remedies are dosed individually. The point is
that each remedy is chosen individually, as a remedy matched to the
individual specifically and the dosing rate is also chosen individually.
I have given evidence that introducing a constitutional-type remedy is
an enhancement over using simillimum alone in terminal cases with weak
life force such as in effusive FIP. The cure rate went from 0% to over
50% in more than 350 cases. How is that not evidence?
Where did you get that idea?
I was applauding him for doing so:-)))
I was also pointing out that Hn was not as averse to improvements as you
seem to be:-))
And what is different in what I am doing?
I experiemented and found better results. No harm done!
And I changed my ideas from cases that died to ones that survived.
It is called progress.
I am merely advocating that Hn's progress not be seen as an endpoint but
as a starting point for us.

(He probably would have changed

And you think I am not good enough to introduce an improvement then?
Based on what?
I am not reinventing homeopathy - merely adding an aspect. I have some
years of work, not a lifetime as Hn had - and it is in one area of
illness not all that I offer my results - but it is significant results
I had, even if taken purely from a statistical perspective - in the area
where I have done intensive work.
How do you judge who has enough "calibre" for you, to accept their work?
Why do you not judge the work and the results rather than the "calibre"
of the individual?

We are all human (including Hn) and do the best that we can.
I have done work on several hundred cases, and had increasingly better
results. I offer what I did and why I believe it works.
Ah. So you feel that nobody knowns the basics yet - and that therefore
nobody is in a position to achieve a higher rate of success than 0% in
FIP as that would require changing what you do not wish to see changed?
I am sorry but I missed the logic there altogether.
If you personally received an effusive FIP case - knowing that there are
techniques that have achieved at least 50% success - would you use the
techniques that only gave 0% success to date?
And would you tell the client whose cat dies that you do this as "it is
basic"?
So do I, it is essential. But I ADD the constitutional-type remedy in
some cases.
I agree.
What I am suggesting is no guesswork. It is also individualized, which
is at the core of good homeopathy. It is finding the one and only
constitutional-type remedy (by repertorizing) that matches the
individual so as to enhance the success of the approach of simillimum alone.
We add other aspects to the simillimum - such as nutrition and
environmental improvements - and nutrition helps the constitution
(integrity) of the body - and so does the remedy matching
constitutional-type. It's not a guess.
I do not use "combinations" either. Let's be specific please to avoid
spurious argument off the subject.
I include a constitutional-type remedy in specific cases. As for why
nobody else did this - we all have a different important life purpose.
This is part of mine, not part of hers or Hahnemann's or anyone
else's:-) Nobody else has had the same life experiences that I have had.
Nor do they happen to work extensively with a disease whose history
(including with homeopathy) has a 0% success rate and which kills mainly
the young. I do. So I am challeneged to find ways to get some success.
We each work in the area where we were intended to work - this is part
of MY life purpose )
I have been an innovative type of personality always, it is a necessary
part of my personality so that I can do what I was meant to do.
We are all made in the right way to do what we are supposed to do on
this planet:-))
There is no need to compare with others and what they do:-)
As do we all who have studied the art and science of homeopathy.
That was never in question.
What I am adding is an enhancement to allow success where previously
there was failure. It in fact uses the knowledge of the MM and repertory
to an even greater extent than before. It requires not only the ability
to select the simillimum by this means - but also the ability to select
the constitutional-typ remedy by comparable means - and to differntiate
betwen rubriscs for the one and rubrics for the other.
So it requires a lot deeper understanding and use of the repertory and
MMs than finding only the simillimum.
I agree.
Who here is not opening their eyes to a new approach - an enhancement
that results in better success - as an unprejudiced observer?

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."

Hi Soroush,

Do you object to Irene's method *even if/tho* it saves cats' lives, or
do you doubt her when she says that it has? Or are you rather just
following the "...but is it homeopathy?" line of thought?
Thanks,
Shannon