Minutus

Dear Dr. Rozencwajg,
Kent gives an explanation of "sick headache" under Eupatorium:
Pain in the base of the brain and back of the head, associated with gouty joints. These are often referred to as arthritic headaches, that is, gouty headaches, headaches associated wtih painful joints. Or the headaches may alternate with pains in the joints. Congestive headaches, the pain being in the base of the brain, with more or less throbbing; the pain spreads up through the head and produces a general congestive attack. Sometimes these headaches come on when the joints are feeling better, and the more headache he has the less pain he has in the extremities; and again, when the gout affects the extremities, then the headaches diminish. Headaches, having a third and seventh-day aggravation, coming with more or less periodicity. With the headaches there will be nausea and vomiting of bile, nausea at the thought and smell of food. This gouty individual is also subject to vertigo, and the sensation as if he would fall to the left. Sometimes in intermittent fever this symptom of swaying to the left and vertigo ending in nausea and vomiting, violent pain in the back of the head and pain in the bones, are the first threatenings.
I love reading Kent's MM as he gives these gems in the strangest places - sometimes just in the middle of some remedy where you would never know to find it!
Truly,
Erica

Hi Erica,

Is *all* of this supposed to apply to that single term?? When people
talk of having a "sick headache", they are certainly not talking about
"pain at the occiput" or *any* of that very specific stuff... My
understanding has always gone with the "headache plus nausea", or plus
a general "sick" feeling (as is buried deep within this section
), which usually means some degree of nausea. All of the descriptions
involving top of the head, this side or that side, above eye, etc.--I'm
love to know where they come from, but they are certainly *not* what
your average patient has in mind when s/he uses the term...
:-/

Hi Shannon,
Hmmm... I suppose it's open to interpretation however if you read
the section referenced under Eupatorium (p.514), this description
follows the term "sick headache" in italic. And after the total
description (as I typed it), he then goes back to describe
additional symptoms of the remedy he was discussing. I reviewed the
paragraph several times in context, and it does appear he is
expanding on the term "sick headache."

Though, like any vernacular, our modern use doesn't always follow
its original intent. If I've misinterpreted the description, please
do correct me!

Thanks!
Truly,
Erica

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:

It is curious. I noticed the same in a number of citations posted,
that the term seemed to have a very specific and elaborate meaning, but
I'm baffled by it... Well, perhaps it did have a specific meaning at
that time, that just isn't in today's usage--it wouldn't be the first
nor last! Thanks for the quote!

Shannon

One general thought - not specific to this inquiry about 'sick headaches'.

Occasionally the nature of the listing is an artifact of the repertory
organization process. Unfortunately, once it becomes part of a historic
record (published) it is seldom examined again, and it proliferates the
problem. When grouping symptoms that require a bit more explanation (such
as 'sick' headache as opposed to 'tension' headache, or 'eye strain'
headache, or 'nauseous' headache, 'rotten' headache or simply headache) a
compromise is reached in current language of the day (or even the region of
the editor).

I have been running into this problem lately since I have created a
repertory of signs and symptoms associated with stress related nutrient
deficiencies. If you don't 'boil' the language down to a relatively few
headings, you are left with an incomprehensible and unusable list. If you
do any 'boiling down' you risk losing valuable information and
specification. It is easy to see how, over the years, our repertories have
been edited, transcribed, translated, reorganized and edited again. I
admire and applaud those 'researchers and historians' in our field that go
back to the original resources and help us understand the language issues
in the roots of (and perhaps update) our MMs and repertories.

On Oct 4, 2007, at 3:19 PM, DCR wrote:
That is intriguing! Can you say more about it?
Shanonn

Hi DCR (Rona?),

The limited nature of language is something that we have to continually keep in mind. Categories are always tainted by their historical setting. Studying allopathic disease categories, it is evident that they also struggle with loose categories. For example, the way Irene describes the variations on Graves disease seems to be no where in the textbook descriptions of the disease. Even doctors can't recognize her version. I image you are facing this problem in using clinical descriptions of multi-causal disease categories for your repertory.

Luckily, sick headache is not a repertory rubric. That's why we break down these "disease" categories into symptoms. The most apparently concrete rubric is also a collection of symptoms with it's own set of historically limited assumptions. Aggravations from heat of the stove, or from riding in a carriage are obvious. But, the cultural implication of narrower symptom categories are going to be much less than larger disease categories. Using categories such as body locations for much of the repertory sounds primitive and must run into problems too, but probably less so than a repertory based on disease categories.

Best,
Ellen