Minutus

In some cases the name of the disease/diagnosis simply serves as a
shorthand. A homeopath with appropriate medical knowledge may not benefit
from the diagnosis, but a medically naive person, such as myself, might
benefit. E.g. diagnosis/disease name can (in *some* cases) alert me to
depth or seriousness of the disease that I might be unsure of otherwise. It
might tell me whether a case is only functional (high potencies okay, and
cure might be rapid, should be lasting) or whether there is tissue change
(low potencies, go slowly and carefully, don't expect overnight miracles).
It could alert me to a genetic/deep miasmatic component which I might
otherwise be unaware of (could influence remedy choice, would definitely
influence expectations regarding progress), etc.

Diagnosis is *not* useful as a rubric, but it *is* useful asa shorthand way
of passing along a large body of information or suspicions, succintly.

But there is a danger of taking diagnosis "too seriously" (what is
"incurable" for an allopath might be *easily* curable for a homeopath!), and
also of leaning too heavily on that "name" in our remedy search.

Shannon
on 4/10/04 10:44 AM, Dr.Naval Kumar at ssoindia@hotmail.com wrote:

Shannon your reply is inspirational and a true celebration of the
inspiration of homoepathy and its founder on his birthday. I also applaud
the patience and time showed in your explanation for Anna. Liz Lalor

Dear Shannon,

Thank you for this. Re your selection of remedies aimed at the mentals in
cases of physical diseases, do you find in your work that particular types
of disease (as loosely defined via observation of symptom expression)
respond better than others to this kind of approach? I am wondering, for
instance, how this fits with cancer treatment, in the light of Dr
Ramakrishnan's system.
Yes, the allopathic diagnosis is really *only* a description of the
symptoms. For instance "Asthma" simply means "inability to breathe
properly", which doesn't (as you say) give us much to go on.
With things such as (to use a very simple example) Arnica for bruising or
wound healing, however, can one not say that specific remedies work for
specific things? Also, looking through Hahnemann, I was reading about his
treatment of the typhus outbreak of 1813, in which he used Bryonia and Rhus
Tox as specific remedies for all the patients. I quote: "Then the one or two
remedies found to be homeopathic healed the whole epidemy, and therefore
showed themselves specifically helpful with every patient." So he was saying
they were homeopathic to the disease, not to the individuals.
Although in the above quotation, Hahnemann wasn't talking about a
typhus-like disease, he was talking about typhus fever itself and found only
one or two remedies to treat the whole lot, without going into the mentals.

Furthermore, Hahnemann says "Thus, in the year 1813, one patient would be
prostrated with only a few symptoms of this plague, a second patient showed
only a few, but different ailments, while a third, fourth, etc, would
complain of still other ailments belonging to this epidemic disease, while
they were nevertheless all sick with one and the same pestilential fever and
the entire and complete image of the typhus fever reigning at the time could
only be obtained by gathering together the symptoms of all, or at least of
many, of these patients."

It seems from this that Hahnemann was using generalised remedies, sometimes
not even looking at the symptoms of the patients individually because he
could identify the same disease in all of them (i.e. "typhus"). So was the
disease label, as a definition of what symptoms to look for in the patient,
not his main, indeed only, guide in this?

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

Hi Anna,

First I have to say, my experience is not all that great, just
"friends-and-family" stuff; but here's from my understanding.

on 4/10/04 1:00 PM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote:
The answer would have to depend on the particular case, and on the
understanding (training and perception) of the practitioner. One idea I was
taught was to "follow the case", and prescribe on the best remedy image you
can see. So, if a case has a clear mental/emotional picture (which of
course doesn't necessarily mean there is any "mental disease"), whereas the
physical symptoms are pretty general (not much in the way of modalities or
distinguishing features), then I would prescribe on the mental picture,
*maybe* to the point of ignoring non-conforming physical symptoms (this is
all full of "maybe's", tho!).

Here's one possible pitfall -- if the physical symptoms are caused by a
disease or condition that I'm not aware of, or that I'm not familiar with,
then I may give importance to symptoms which are not really important, and
may fail to recognize some of the features of the case which are in fact
unusual. (E.g. vertigo in a patient with inner ear infection would be not
the least unusual, and so perhaps not be emphasized in prescribing; whereas
persistent vertigo with no apparent explanation, might be important to the
remedy choice.) So in this case I'd be likely to prescribe on the mental
picture, and willing to overlook lack of good confirmation in the physical
picture.

OTOH there will be cases where the person is either pretty healthy
emotionally, or for whatever other reason I am not able to see anything
characterizing or unusual in their M/E picture. But perhaps the physical
symptom picture seems rich -- strong modalities (things that make it better
or worse), clear descriptions as to e.g. type of pain, behavior, location,
causation, whatever. In that case I'll not bother much with the mental
picture, and just look for a match to the physical picture.

I'm always happiest when I can get a fit with both physical and mental, but
that doesn't always happen!
Cancer too can be approached in different ways. If the person hasn't had
any particular physical symptoms yet (e.g. diagnosed in a routine exam),
then treatment would certainly be based on the rest of the case (mentals
and/or physicals and/or history, etc.).

If there are strong physical symptoms, then I'd consider an approach such as
either Eizayaga's lesional (which I'd hope to have someone *else* do, as I
haven't learned it in any depth!) or Dr. R's (ditto!). But I do think the
basic idea is the same with cancer as with other conditions -- you go where
your case is (i.e. you prescribe based on the clearest and most
comprehensive symptom picture you can see, whether mental and/or physical,
general and/or specific).

Of course, with a disease that can kill you, e.g. cancer, more information
is needed, and it's needed more urgently. E.g. you would want to know just
how "serious" or how far advanced it is (some diagnostic information could
be helpful!!!), a solid sense of how urgent it is, and what the expected
course would be without treatment. (E.g., you need to be able to tell
whether your remedy is working or not!)
Yes, in general, that's true (tho bruising with a sensation of coldness
would suggest ledum; some people respond better to bellis-p, and other
possible exceptions...). Acute diseases and traumas are easier to treat
efficiently, because the pool of likely remedies is smaller. Even there,
there can be exceptions (sometimes arnica won't work, and something else is
indicated instead).

I'm still a little uncertain on the subject of "specifics"; some people (as
I've heard here!) seem to make good use of them, while others wouldn't dream
of trying. I assume that any "specific" will be more successful in some
cases than in others, and that deeper prescribing (prescribing based on a
broader picture) will yield a deeper result (e.g. a well-chosen acute or
trauma remedy may bring about healing at a constitutional/chronic level, as
well as clearing the acute or trauma, whereas the "specific" presumably
would not do that; but maybe it's no "worse" to give the specific and then
when that's over, proceed with the chronic case. I don't know; I was
trained to prescribe on presenting picture, and go "deep" when possible; but
I don't think too deeply before giving e.g. arnica for a bad sprain,
hypericum for smashed fingers, etc.)
Yes!!! A good point!
This would be an example of "genus epidemicus" -- a remedy(s) for a given
epidemic. (Which is not the same, tho, as "a remedy for a given
disease...")

In a lesson at my school, the teacher described process of finding genus
epidemicus, which is to combine and prescribe on as many *cases* from the
epidemic as possible -- "as if one person" (or some similar phrase).
Someone asked, what about those patients that were already cured using a
different remedy (i.e., cured by a remedy chosen on basis of their
individual picture, rather than the epidemic picture)? She said she would
phone and have them come in for a dose of the genus epidemicus, because she
felt that treating the *epidemic* (with the genus remedy) also could have
further benefit to them, even tho they'd been cured of the illness already
by their indicated remedy. I'm intrigued by this...

Do others feel the same, or was this her own thinking? (Just curious,
again!)

This quote also takes us back to the "treat the disease" vs. "treat the
patient" dispute, and this one clearly comes down on the side of "treat the
disease", doesn't it! (Tho I suppose I'm more on the "treat the patient"
side myself, for most stuff.... )
But I *think* it was a particular epidemic he's referring to, not every
possible case of typhoid. Does the context of the passage suggest
otherwise?

But (again) he does also speak of a small group of "diseases" subject to
treatment with "specifics", e.g. "the smooth scarlatina of Sydenham",
whatevertheheck that means. (Scarlet fever?)
This is a description of the method for finding genus epidemicus. He would
indeed be looking very closely at each patient individually (at least until
he was very confident of having identified the g.e.), because he would use
all of those individual pictures to combine to form the larger picture of
the epidemic (as opposed to picture of an individual case). So no, it
wasn't the disease *label* that guided him; still prescribing on symptom
picture, just a larger picture now!

Tho as above, it appears there were certain diseases where, once he had
identified the "disease", he would have a ready assumption as to the needed
remedy ("specific"). But Hahnemann would have always been alert to any
features of the case that might indicate something different.

If others have understanding different from mine, please share! I think
there's a lot of material here (ideas re specifics, genus ep., disease vs.
patient, all that) that's worth a good deal of looking at; interesting
stuff!

Best,
Shannon

dear Dr Naval kumar,

i really appreciate your efforts,to make us understand
the real homeopathy,you make things very easy to
understand,
after Hahnemann no one did any research for the
causation of disease and doctrine of natural law of
cure,and allopathic system is doing lot of progress
day by day in research and development of medicine,
but still there is no solution to any major illness.

if we do lot of hard work & research work in
homeopathy , there will be a big revolution.we all
support your continuous efforts to promote homeopathy.
warm regards
all the best
Dan Danial

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

I am going to combine in one reply, several comments from the list.

At 11:45 AM -0500 4/10/04, Bob&Shannon wrote:
Yes. Same word (disease) but different underlying use.
Yes. To an allopath, the disease *name* is a label given to a
particular coming together of symptoms: "You have a fever, this kind
of rash, with this kind of onset, and it equals 'measles'." But that
only gives us the common symptoms (which are generally enough for an
allopath) while the characteristic symptoms (i.e., sore throat worse
on empty swallowing) are ignored because they (allopaths) have no
model into which such information can be of any use.

The common symptoms are useful in the context of understanding which
symptoms are useful for homeopathic prescribing. For example,
psoriasis is generally better in the sun, so "better for sun" is a
common symptom and not useful in prescribing.

At 6:00 PM +0000 4/10/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:
not quite. See below.

[snip]
What you are discussing is the treatment of "epidemic disease."
Jeremy Sherr explained this very clearly when he presented six cases
of measles-- all with a slightly different presentation. The class
could not repertorize a single remedy in ANY of the cases, but when
we did a repertorization of all SIX AS ONE, two remedies became very
clear.
We could then looks at the six cases as all being the same "disease"
but each having a slightly different presentation, where the remedy
was not clear until we saw it (as Hahnemann suggests) as a SINGLE
case. Then we has two remedies that could be given, individualizing
on just a single aspect of movement or no movement (Arsenicum or
Bryonia if my memory serves).
As the above shows, he was not looking at the disease label, but as
the "label" of the epidemic, which was presenting in various ways.
The next time the epidemic struck it might be other remedies that
would come up when the whole was seen.
We see this in the cases of diphtheria in the literature where the
common symptoms remain the same (i.e., always "diphtheria") but the
remedy for the epidemic might be Apis one year, and Mercuricus corr
the next.

At 4:53 PM -0500 4/10/04, Bob&Shannon wrote:

[snip]

and/or physicals and/or history, etc.).

Cancer can be very insidious. Remember, that to prescribe, you need
subjective symptoms. Often, the person with the cancer does not have
subjective symptoms. All was going along fine until a physical when
they found they had it. No symptoms.
This, according to Kent, is a very sick person. The illness is so
internalized that it does not make itself known.

What Dr. R is doing (as did Burnett and Cooper) is work with treating
the tumor without really treating the totality of the person, since
the "totality" has manifest in this one pathology.

Paul Herscu presented an analogy where the totality (a circle) gets a
growth on the side. As long as the growth is connected to the circle,
a "totality" remedy will resolve it. But as the growth starts to
"neck" down, it becomes more independent until it separates from the
sphere. At this point, you have to treat the "independent" piece. The
ideal is that with treatment it will re-attach itself to the circle.
Not sure if that's clear or not, but without a diagram it is hard to explain.

JW

Excellent Julian (& Shannon before you)
Thank you for that
Sheri

At 08:31 PM 04/11/2004 +0000, you wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL
OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

At 8:31 PM +0000 4/11/04, Julian Winston wrote:
This reminds me of a book I read long ago. I think it was called "The
Web that has no weaver" by Ted Kaptchuck. I might be mistaken.
The book was about the essential differences between Chinese medicine
and Western medicine. At one point he described a constellation of
symptoms (allopathic thinking) and the probable prescription for them.
He THEN described the *same* person, but seen from the viewpoint of
Chinese medicine, where the diagnosis would be something like, "Too
much heat and water, threadlike pulse, liver energy blocked," and
then, based on THAT diagnosis, what the treatment world be.
At the time I read it I postulated a *third* diagnosis-- that seen by
a homeopath and how that diagnosis leads to an appropriate remedy.
I used the example when doing talks about homeopathy to show how it
differed in an essential way from allopathy. The "disease" can be
seen using very different descriptors in the varying systems.

JW

Hi Julian,

I'm very interested in your remarks re treating cancer when it has, so to
speak, no connection to the totality. A bunch of disconnected questions:
Can you say any more about how one treats a cancer which has no symptoms, in
a person who appears to be completely healthy? (What do you prescribe on??)

I find this easy enough to understand in an allopathic context, where
"completely healthy" is a pretty darned loose term, but I know that it does
also arise in context of homeopathy. A past homeopath of mine, whose work I
have found very careful and good, talked about being sort of broadsided when
a patient of his developed cancer, tho he had seen no sign whatever of any
trouble brewing.

I've wondered whether in some cases this could be just a step or a "wrinkle"
on the path of healing, whether (at least in some cases) the cancer might
simply resolve itself if it hadn't been "discovered"?

Or whether one can really have a terminal physical disorder develop in the
context of mental, emotional and physical vitality???

All insights appreciated!!!

Thanks,
Shannon
on 4/11/04 3:31 PM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

Dear Julian,

Your descriptions of these problems have been enlightening.

This is a really broad question and may sound silly, but theoretical questions are like that so bear with me. You described cancer symptoms as being the "growth" on the outside of the circle (a holistic understanding of the patient). My question is: Are acute symptoms that cannot be ignored but are not part of the whole circle like that also? As a scenario, in the middle of a chronic treatment, a patient breaks his leg, develops influenza, etc. The acute symptoms must be treated because the vital force is totally preoccupied with them and the chronic treatment is put on hold. A sudden, insidious cancer without symptoms is chronic, but the medical diagnosis points to a specific malignancy that must be treated outside the whole circle. On a theoretical level is this like an acute occurring during a chronic case? Except cancer is really a deep chronic illness and will have its roots in the whole case that will reveal itself as the "acute" diagnosed symptom is treated.

Blessings,
Ellen