Question on Homotoxicology

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Just another spot remark about the remedies in quick succession and remedies put together:

- in quick succession would mean that you give a remedy, nothing happens or symtoms change, then you decide for another remedy, same thing happens, you continue until resolution: something you would do in acute cases or in an emergency

- putting remedies together: you decide beforehand that you need the information provided by the 2 or more remedies; that is the basis of complexism, one of the French schools of practice, geared mainly towards physical symptoms/diseases, but where the different remedies are choosen based on some similarity; you will use that in chronic cases; in the homotoxicological remedy, it is more cellular and biological action of remedies that are considered rather than similarity as per provings or cured cases although there are very wide overlaps.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Dr Rozencwajg,

Thank you for this. It is the overlaps I am interested in!

By the way, you mentioned you are fully qualified in homotoxicology? Where
can one study this in depth? So far I have only found a small certificate
course and what seems to be a more in-depth diploma course in England, which
requires seminar attendance. Is this the one you have done?

Anna
_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.
http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

I have the distance course one, which was pityful when I took it, attended a lot of seminars in different countries, read all the books and made my own experiments.

Yes, the overlaps are sometimes amazing, and this is between all the different healing techniques; and when you see them, you tend to ask yourself "how did I miss that before? how do THEY miss that?".
It is called integrative medicine, but that is outside the scope of this list.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Dr Rozencwajg,

Thank you for your response.
Seems like a lot of things are!

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband

[Cl.Mennel]

Dear Anna,

it was a great pleasure to write in my mother tongue and be understood.
Thanks.
Here again the quote:
Here an English translation taken from
http://www.webstore.fr/~lois.hoffer/dblrem/chrono.htm
Text of the new paragraph, made public by Lutze in 1865 (pg 486,
Bradford):
"Section 274b: "There are several cases of disease in which the
administration of a double remedy is perfectly homeoapthic and truly
rational; where, for instance, each of two medicines appears suited for
the case of disease, but each from a different side; or where the case
of disease depends on more than one of the three radical causes of
chronic disease discovered by me, as when in addition to psora we have
to do with syphilis or sychosis also. (...)"

What stroke me most in the quote you cited is the word "echt" in line 2.
"echt rationell" that is definitely not Hahnemann's style and especially
the collocation "ganz homoopathisch und echt rationell" (perfectly
homeoapthic and truly rational) does not sound like him. It's difficult
to explain why, but that clause is too verbose. Hahnemann's style
reminds me strongly of Friedrich Schiller's prose writings, very lucid,
long, but well structured sentences, precise and always to the point -
not a word too much and not one neccessary word missing that might help
you understand the subject - you call it dense, a good description.
(Anyway, both authors are a pleasure to read - now you may reap the
fruits of your labour, having gone through many a month of learning
German grammar )

Since you gave your source everything is clear, the so called "6th
edition of Hahnemann's Organon" by Arthur Lutze is a fraud, because he
interpolated the Organon with notes and suggestions of his own.

I found an informative article in the web dealing with the problem:

http://www.webstore.fr/~lois.hoffer/dblrem/lutzebio.htm
"Five years after the publication of his Lehrbuch with the double remedy
chapter, Lutze brought down on his head even more disapproval by daring
to publish a 6th edition of Hahnemann's Organon. The 5th edition (1833)
had been long out of print, and Melanie Hahnemann kept talking about
releasing Hahnemann's annotated 5th edition for publication as the 6th
we know today, but as many times as she agreed to realese it, she
retracted the offer. Even Hahnemann's grandson that same year was
threatening to publish a "sixth edition", so that the public would once
more have access to a version of the Organon. I have not seen a copy of
the Lutze 6th Organon, so I do not know what changes to the 5th he made.
What he DID do, however, which earned him the hatred of many, was to add
back to the text the paragraph 274b that Hahnemann had prepared for the
5th, in response to Dr. Aegidi's discovery of the efficacy of double
remedies, which Hahnemann had subsequently taken out a few months later.
Lutze thus included the paragraph, and in a footnote included the text
of letters written between Aegidi and Hahnemann and an explanation of
what led up to the removal of the paragraph, in order to make public the
full information regarding the subject. [Note: this footnote, reproduced
in vol II pg 85 of Haehl's book "Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work",
is almost word for word the same as that presented in the beginning of
the double remedy chapter]. There were many formal protests to the
appearance of this edition (pg. 86-87, Vol. II Haehl), first by the
editors of the homeopathic journals of the time, published in the Allg.
hom. Ztg. of 10th April, 1865, followed by a statement of repudiation by
Dr. Aegidi himself, repeating comments made in the allg. hom. Ztg., Vol.
54, No. 12 of May 18, 1857 and in the "Neue Zeitschrift fuer
Homoeopathische Klinik", Vol. 2, No. 12, of June 15, 1857. According to
Richard Haehl, even von Boenninghausen repudiated the double remedies,
but the only evidence for this is a letter from von Boenninghausen to
Carroll Dunham, dated March 25th, 1865, which is months after
Boenninghausen's death is commonly assumed to be, on Jan 26, 1864.
Perhaps there is an error and the letter is meant to be dated 1863
instead of 1865?"

More detailed inforation (including quotes and a time line) you might
find here:
http://www.webstore.fr/~lois.hoffer/dblrem/chrono.htm
or presented better:
http://www.homeoint.org/books4/bradford/chapter88.htm

As far as I know only once the usage of two differnnt medicines is
mentioned; it is in the annotation to the § 246 in the 5th edition of
the Oraganon, see below.

http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference ... ganon.html
or
http://www.homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/ ... htm#P246E5

§ 246 5th Edition

"But it not infrequently happens that the vital force refuses to permit
several doses of sulphur, even though they may be essential for the cure
of the chronic malady and are given at the intervals mentioned above, to
act quietly on itself; this refusal it reveals by some, though moderate,
sulphur symptoms, which it allows to appear in the patient during the
treatment. In such cases it is sometimes advisable to administer a small
dose of nux vom. X°, allowing it to act for eight or ten days, in order
to dispose the system again to allow succeeding doses of the sulphur to
act quietly and effectually upon it. In those cases for which it is
adapted, puls. X° is preferable.

But the vital force shows the greatest resistance to the salutary action
upon itself of the strongly indicated sulphur, and even exhibits
manifest aggravation of the chronic disease, though the sulphur be given
in the very smallest dose, though only a globule of the size of a
mustard seed moistened with tinct. sulph X° be smelt, if the sulphur
have formerly (it may be years since) been improperly given
allopathically in large doses. This is one lamentable circumstance that
renders the best medical treatment of chronic disease almost impossible
among the many that the ordinary bungling treatment of chronic diseases
by the old school would leave us nothing to do but to deplore, were
there not some mode of getting over the difficulty.

In such cases we have only to let the patient smell a single time
strongly at a globule the size of a mustard seed moistened with mercur
metall. X, and allow this olfaction to act for about nine days, in order
to make the vital force again disposed to permit the sulphur (at least
the olfaction of tinct. sulph. X°) to exercise a beneficial influence on
itself - a discovery for which we are indepted to Dr. Griesselich, of
Carlsruhe."

Thanks for bringing up that quotation, I enjoyed tracing it.

All the best

Claudia

[Julian Winston]

At 3:04 AM +0100 3/5/04, Cl.Mennel@t-online.de wrote:

[snip]
[snip]

After doing a lot of study with Bradford's work (Lesser Writings,
Pioneers, Bibliography) I am led to believe that Bradford suffered
from dyslexia about dates. I have found several errors-- which could
be:
1. Bradford's error
2. The typesetter misinterpreting Bradford's written manuscript.
3. A real typo.

The Dunham letter from Boenninghausen could NOT be dated 1865,
because Boenninghasusen died by that date.
Unfortunately, all efforts to track the letter have met with failure.
I would be willing, knowing Bradford's scholarship, and the fact that
he DID know Dunham to trust the content of the letter and assume that
the date is a misprint.
Dunham visited Boenninghausen twice, once in 12851 and again in 1855-56.

JW

[Julian Winston]

At 11:03 PM +0000 3/4/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:

You put words in my mouth. They do not stop asking, but the questions
they have tend to be more in-depth and have more substance.
Homeopathy, historically, has not has a lot of "control" data. All I
know is that the cases seen in 150 years of literature that seem to
have the best successes seem to be the ones where the single remedy
was used with great deliberation. As far as multiple remedies, the
question always returns to to "science" of it. How can you determine
what worked? There are many written cases, I am sure, where more than
one remedy at a time was given. But what can be learned by that?
Nothing. Doing so cannot advance the science.
You are not looking deeply at the 150 years of literature.
Some has. Read the paper on the Lutze Organon. See below.
Hahnemann was working with only about 100 remedies. For example,
Hahnemann did not have Apis. Lippe said that before they had Apis,
they often alternated Rhus tox and Sulphur. The more tools you have
to work with the more accurate you can become.
I fail to see how anyone, with a *strong knowledge of materia medica*
could possibly think there is any need to prescribe more than one
remedy at a time, much less TEN.
but that was said in Sept. 1833. By October, he then adds the below:
In his *limited experience at that time* that is what he saw. But
within three years...
How? He was, after all, the experimenter. He tried. he had a few
successes. He tried more. He found it doesn't work as well as the
single remedy. He says so. What's contradictory about that?
If YOU want to do the multiple remedy approach, well, you go right
ahead. But stop taking up the time on this list with your constant
prattling about it.
Really? When? How? The interviews with his closest associates who
visited with Hahnemann during the years of his Paris practice, give
details about Hahnemann's practice, which are borne out in his
casebooks. The sixth edition manuscript spoke specifically against
the use of double remedies. His wife wrote about his practice as
well, and his use of remedies and potencies.
Saying that Hahnemann *secretly* was teaching the use of multiple
remedies is a complete historical fantasy that is not supported by
the historical data we have.
You ask ME for proof? I ask you to give ANY information which can
substantiate this absurd claim.
Not "chosen few"-- those who take the time to study, understand, and
are willing to step outside of the allopathic viewpoint.
No. This is a list that would like to explore the use of the single
remedy. Your questions are not about that. So no more discussion is
needed.
And I doubt you ever will be.
In my experience with my years on many lists, people who sign things
"warmly" usually have no warmth at all.

JW

[Julian Winston]

At 11:03 PM +0000 3/4/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:

[snip]
[snip]

When you consider a single case, probably acute, there is always the
possibility that a combo will work. And of course, since the combo
has not been proven as a combo, the question is, "Which piece worked?"
BUT... When it comes to chronic cases and case management,
combinations (and practitioners who use them) must ultimately fail.
Because in such cases, you need to evaluate the response to the
remedy at the second visit.
If you've used a combination, how do you evaluate the response? How
do you have any idea of what happened with the patient? And,
furthermore, how can you then figure out what to do next?
The use of the single remedy at least makes some of this manageable.

And, since homeopathy is about similitude, how can there be more than
one thing similar?

JW

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

I feel compelled to pull out my old hat from the times of complexism and try to answer that..............

First with the end:
"And, since homeopathy is about similitude, how can there be more than
one thing similar?"

Exactly! we are talking about similarity, not identity, so there can be quite a few similar things, but only one identical.
It is possible to have a certain number of symptoms that together do not lead to any one remedy, but part of the symptoms lead to one remedy and other parts to another remedy, like describing a crystal can be different depending from which angle and with which light you look at it; it is still the same crystal.
The usual answer to that is often that I should study harder and get better at recognising the only simillimum; maybe; but when confronted with a real case, I have got to do the best of my limited ability...............

Then the second consultation. Well IMO, whatever you gave, single or complex, has become irrelevant especially if a change has occured; we are supposed to retake the case, right. So this time we might find a single simillimum and get it on with.

JW gave the example of using alternating remedies when Apis was not yet in the pharmacopea, and the results were good isn't it? less elegant, but what counts is that the patient is cured.
By the same token, some of us might not be able to see the simillimum, if it exists, but only bits and pieces of the case; alternating remedies are OK in an acute case when you treat one bit, then another, then another.
But in chronic cases, if you do not see the "unique" remedy but only discarded bits, there is no reason to treat one bit at a time if you know how to treat all the bits, albeit separately.

In any type of therapy, the ideal is to treat as simply as possible, with the least complications possible; in acupuncture, I was always told to use the least needles needed and if possible to strive for a one needle one session treatment (yeah right.....).
That is and remains the ideal.
The practicalities of daily life often prevents us to do that.
OTOH this should not, never, ever become a justification for becoming a sloppy prescriber.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

[Julian Winston]

At 5:10 PM +0000 3/5/04, Julian Winston wrote:
Damn that Dunham! He stole my time machine! No wonder I couldn't find it!
Back to the Future!!

JW