Hi Chris,
correction : 1838. Sorry.
I am not trying to make any point except that he used a method that IS
sequential. This is what it has in common with Elmiger and Heilkunst.
As to the other aspects of the latter two's methods I have not said
anything - cannot say anything because I do not know them well enough
to have an opinion. However, from what I do know, I should think that
they are quite different.
Anyway, here is the case:
[ square brackets mean additions by me - round brackets are part of
the document)
N Heinr. shepherd[???] [German Hirte] of horses in Walstede (38
years)
Shape[???] of illness [literally translated from German -
Krankheitsform - there are probably better ways to translate it]
Severe inflammation of eyes for 2 years, with redness of the white,
clouding of the pupil, with itching and stinging,, early [in the day]
and in sunshine worse, in the evening better. (Earlier fistulous ulcer on the
throat)
Individuals: Much sweat.
1838
1 July 1. Sulphur C 30, 2. Calc., 3. Sulph, 4. plac.
12. Aug.
The eyes much better.- Still like skin before and clouded.
1. Caus. 2. Puls. 3. Caus. 4. plac.
30 Sept.
afterwards worse rather than better. - The eyes [could not decipher
it], very [dto] - Like fog before the eyes. - Early [in the day]
worst.
1. Bell 2. Calc. 3. Sulph 4. Calc. 5. placebo
[End of record.]
Yes. That was a typo.
Who is harsh? Definitely not I. I am merely presenting what is
documented. Evaluation, where any should be desirable, I leave to
others.
I do not know what you mean. There are very few clerical errors and to
my knowledge no omissions. The above case notes are typical for his
records after he had started professional practice. Actually, typical
is the wrong expression. Practically all the case notes I have seen
are like this. From 1831 to 1835 (when he started his professional
practice) they are a lot shorter - just one line written transversely
in a copybook for each consultation.
In this case the spacing would probably have been 1 week between
doses.
When you go to my page (
www.bar-do.net) you find under "Hauptteil" 50
of his cases, chosen randomly. Everyone, even those not being able to
read German, can see there the percentage of cases where he used
sequences and the dates he used them.
This is merely your interpretation. Actually I am using the word
because IMO it best describes his method. I have been using it in my
articles also. A sequence is a sequence - no matter of what, no matter
how the elements of it are chosen.
But perhaps you are right - I should probably call it: Sequence Method
to distinguish it from those of Elmiger and Heilkunst. Nevertheless:
all three are using sequences.
I never said so. You build up a frontline that does not exist and then
demolish it. That suggest a victory - but since the front did not
exist, appearances are abviously wrong:-)
This part of his career as a homeopath I have so far never even
touched, except for stating above that during this time his case notes
were even shorter.
All I have said above concerns his professional career, when he
practically never left his office to see patients. (This he stated in
one of his publications)
Indeed he did:-) But what does this signify?
I have always said that I am a "theoretical" homeopath. I have been
doing research and what I have written in my articless and posts is
from research.
No objections to anything you say above.
Nothing of this I have even touched in any of my articles or postings
anywhere, except for the last paragraph in the article that I have
ready to send to you. (You should get in in a few days)
Dr. Holzapfel has in his editorial taken this up from the point of
view of the Boger-v. Bön. approach. Since I know very, very little
about the latter I have no opinion on the validity of what he says
there. I am sure he would appreciate if, after reading the editorial,
you will send him an email commenting.
Btw. Marion Baschin is writing her dissertaion for PhD at the
IGM-Bosch on some aspects of the practice of v. B. If after conclusion
of it she stays at the Institute, research on v. B. may get impetus.
I do know the "Verwandschaften" of course. From what you write above,
Kastner's work does not seem to be based on v. B's documents but his
publications. Anyhow, afaik v. B. never published on his "Method of
Sequences" - and neither in his Verwandschaften nor in the preface to
his TTB of 1846 it is mentioned.
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 <==========