Minutus

on 12/18/03 12:16 AM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote:

YET WHEN A
Very to-the-point -- thank you!!!
Shannon

I'm realizing I have very little frame of reference for this situation. Can
anyone who's had experience with detoxing opiates tell me a bit, e.g. how
potency(s) was used, how frequently were re-doses needed, how quick was
recovery? I realize, of course, that all this can be variable, but I am
simply looking for a frame of reference.

Also, from those who've successfully done this, was the remedy chosen by
excluding common symptoms entirely, or simply by giving them *less* weight
compared to the more individual ones?

Thanks,
Shannon

Dear Shannon, ALL doses should be approached with care and detail as much as
the rest of the case, individualisation is important. All potencies and all
doses can cause aggravations - if this happens you have to tread carefully.

Perhaps if you had done a double dilution?? Reading again what you have
written it kind of sounds like an overload that was just too much for her,
worse still if the remedy wasn't correct. The original choice of 30c is/was
quite a high one considering the distress she has had, but that is just my
choice and opinion. I would have kept to low potencies, even LM's - apart
from emotional symptoms you don't know to what extent the liver has been
damaged (or any other internal organ). But apparent ameliorations which are
followed by aggravations have to be looked at carefully. But to be honest I
think your time would be better spent attending to the current symptoms.

Personally, I would be looking at other remedies. Although, from what you
have written in your other posts, there are some symptoms of Opium, it
doesn't strike me as being the first choice. I think the sx need to be
graded and ranked with as much detail as any other case - you will get much
better results if you take the time over this and not go for an 'overall'
remedy which picks up on some symptoms. For example, the 'creepy crawling'
sensation seems to be a very strong sx - Opium does have this but so do many
other remedies and in a much more forceful manner.

Look for something unusual, ask her what images she has in her mind, what
sensations is she having, get details of the dreams etc, retake the whole
case if you have to - this is a case just like any other, you are looking
for the right remedy which has to fit like a glove. Simple this might sound
but why make it any more difficult than that.

Best wishes, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 12/17/03 10:04 PM, Bob&Shannon at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

Thanks Joy,
Of your choices, I think the only plausible ones (in this particular
context) are that the dose was too much, or the dose was too soon. But I
thought the whole *point* of water dosing was that you didn't have to worry
(within reasonable bounds, anyway) about re-dosing too soon??? I thought
that was their big advantage???

And re "too much", why would three pellets dry *not* be too much, yet 1 tsp
ouf of 3 tablets in a cup of water, be "too much"???

As far as being sure of the remedy, well, that may be a few years. And my
experiences with folks who *are* sure of the remedies they've given me, has
been awfully darned dismal, so I'm not too optimistic on *that* topic right
now... And even if the remedy is *wrong*, I do not understand the violent
negative response she had to the water dose! But I take your point, and
I'll look some more.

Thanks,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If I saw a remedy wearing off so quickly I would probably go up on the potency but I must admit that I would always repeat the remedy with the same potency first!!

Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk

Sorry am I thick or something as if there was a striking improvement to a tedious ailment immediately I am sure the patient Would be very happy about it and so would I!! Maybe I should read this quote from C D in context!!!

Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk

Thanks Joy,
I'll do all that. One thing I'm not clear on -- how highly (or not) would
I rank those symptoms that are common to her situation (withdrawal
symptoms)? This is *most* of what she describes (tho her emotional
responses I am going to look closely at).

Best,
Shannon
on 12/18/03 12:37 PM, Joy Lucas at joy.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:

Hi Rochelle,

Here's a re-run of the whole post Chris sent:

Chronic Diseases p 126:

"But if any unfavorable effects are evolved by the present dose of medicine,
i.e., troublesome symptoms which do not belong to this disease, and if the
mind of the patient becomes depressed, if only a little at first, still
increasingly, then the next dose of the same medicine, given immediately
after the former, cannot but become injurious to the patient. YET WHEN A
SUDDEN GREAT AND STRIKING IMPROVEMENT OF A TEDIOUS GREAT AILMENT FOLLOWS
IMMEDIATELY ON THE FIRST DOSE OF A MEDICINE, THERE JUSTLY ARISES MUCH
SUSPICION THAT THE REMEDY HAS ONLY ACTED PALLIATIVELY, AND THEREFORE MUST
NEVER BE GIVEN AGAIN, EVEN AFTER THE INTERVENTION OF SEVERAL OTHER
REMEDIES."

I read that first as addressing this context, where there is immediate
improvement followed by bad reaction to the *next* dose -- but on
re-reading, it isn't saying that, is it (ouch)... Is this passage saying
that *every* time you see a wonderful response which is also very quick (in
a chronic case, presumably), that means the remedy was wrong???? Mm, that
knocks out some of my favorite experiences (thinking, thinking, thinking...)

Shannon
on 12/18/03 1:33 PM, rochelle at rochelle@ntlworld.com wrote:

The passage in Chronic Diseases is set in the context of Hahnemann's
precautionary rules for prescribing.
It means, in this paragraph, if a chronic "tedious" ailment that has taken a
long time to develop suddenly *disappears* after administration of one dose
of a remedy then we should be suspicious that *palliation* only has occured.
Notwithstanding single dose cures...a long standing complaint in a miasmatic
case is unlikely to suddenly disappear with one remedy. Hahnemann suggests
caution when this apparently good reaction is found.

What follows next tells the true story.
*New troublesome symptoms* that were not part of the original case and
*emotional distress* signify that the remedy choice was inaccurate. Possibly
the dose was too strong and unnecessarily overpowered the Vital Force.

Compare this to *true acute prescribing*...where a sudden rapid amelioration
of acute symptoms DOES indicate a good remedy choice. The true "miraculous"
reaction we all greatly desire to see.

Chris

It's needle in the haystack stuff, go over and over the details. What she is
experiencing might be common to withdrawal symptoms but within all that will
be her own individual expression of it, you've just got to eke it out. This
phase of her condition, whether it be an acute one or not, needs to be
examined with the greater totality of the case as well.

Best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 12/18/03 7:43 PM, Bob&Shannon at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

Thanks Joy,
I'll do all that. One thing I'm not clear on -- how highly (or not) would
I rank those symptoms that are common to her situation (withdrawal
symptoms)? This is *most* of what she describes (tho her emotional
responses I am going to look closely at).

Best,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It is saying that 'tedious great ailments' don't just disappear so quickly
like that (we know that, it takes time and sometimes more than one remedy),
and when 'new troublesome symptoms' appear that were not part of the
original case, this suggests the remedy was wrong and the vital force might
have been overpowered by the dose as well.

Can you actually single out what were the new troublesome symptoms - the
dreaming??, what else? Let's not get confused here, does this reference
actually describe this case, how long has her health been compromised?

Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 12/18/03 7:55 PM, Bob&Shannon at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

Hi Rochelle,

Here's a re-run of the whole post Chris sent:

Chronic Diseases p 126:

"But if any unfavorable effects are evolved by the present dose of medicine,
i.e., troublesome symptoms which do not belong to this disease, and if the
mind of the patient becomes depressed, if only a little at first, still
increasingly, then the next dose of the same medicine, given immediately
after the former, cannot but become injurious to the patient. YET WHEN A
SUDDEN GREAT AND STRIKING IMPROVEMENT OF A TEDIOUS GREAT AILMENT FOLLOWS
IMMEDIATELY ON THE FIRST DOSE OF A MEDICINE, THERE JUSTLY ARISES MUCH
SUSPICION THAT THE REMEDY HAS ONLY ACTED PALLIATIVELY, AND THEREFORE MUST
NEVER BE GIVEN AGAIN, EVEN AFTER THE INTERVENTION OF SEVERAL OTHER
REMEDIES."

I read that first as addressing this context, where there is immediate
improvement followed by bad reaction to the *next* dose -- but on
re-reading, it isn't saying that, is it (ouch)... Is this passage saying
that *every* time you see a wonderful response which is also very quick (in
a chronic case, presumably), that means the remedy was wrong???? Mm, that
knocks out some of my favorite experiences (thinking, thinking, thinking...)

Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]