Hi Jon,
Thanks for elaborating!
Couple more questions:
on 5/21/03 9:44 PM, Jon van Hoffen at
seamagic@tpg.com.au wrote:
I'm curious whether the are things that changed after nat-m -- i.e. has he
become less anxious, obstinate and easily excitable?
Less fearful of separation?
(Just for interest, I do see nat-m in a rather small group for "fear of
dogs".)
Could you describe which mind symptoms seemed to you to contra-indicate
nat-m? And BTW I'm asking this *not* for sake of argument (!!!), but rather
because I *love* this sort of examination of "cases that worked better than
they should have" (smile). I think that's where I do my best learning about
fuller pictures of the remedies! Esp. the better known ones, where I tend
to get stuck in expecting every case to look like a compendium of keynotes
(ouch).
As I read thru your description, I've been looking thru nat-m rubric
extraction to see which things seem to fit. (Which BTW can be a great
recipe for madness, as the "big" remedies can seem to include just about any
extreme...) I notice that, altho nat-m is famous for
MIND; AFFECTION; demonstrate, cannot*: nat-m., sep.
(where it is only a (1)),
It is also in the somewhat larger rubric
MIND; AFFECTIONATE (K4, SRI-13, G1)**
-- as a (2)!
Did you give only a single dose of 12c?
This has been one of my "revelations" during the years since finishing
school. I was taught a strong bias toward higher potencies; our first
family prescriber (a wonderful one, who we saw for about ten years until he
retired) seemed to not take anything lower than 30c very seriously at all!
But I've been charmed to have many wonderful results, even in a couple of
very urgent acutes, with 12s (either x or c). But in chronic cases I have
always (based on a very small sample size) needed to repeat a 12 anywhere
from daily to every few days, at which point sxs would begin to return. I
love to hear about cases where low potency has had effect both deep and
long-lasting (and I have heard others, too).
Yes indeed!!!
I think too, part of what happened in this case *might* have been simply
that the child didn't have a great deal of pathology at the mental level;
there was some (anxious, obstinate, waking etc.), and I *think* all of that
actually is consistent with nat-m, tho it's not the rx that would have leapt
to my mind either, just on that basis. So the approach you followed seems
perfect -- expand the scope of investigation by focusing on chief presenting
complaints (in this case physical)...
Thanks Jon!
Shannon