arnica case - chronic/acute - &dentist

[Joy Lucas]

I'm not riled, life's too good to feel riled and I had no idea you had
an identity crisis! apologies

anyway to answer you questions with one answer - if a homeopath cannot
give the required time to decide on the most indicated rx (whether
thinking on your feet for an acute or with the luxury of more time for
an acute) then they shouldn't prescribe - you might just as well ask
the client to pick a letter from A-Z and select some rx. Even if you
think the simillimum might be any number of, let's say, 3 rx you could
supply those rx but not give instructions to take them as a combo, but
to take, wait, decide, repeat, try another. Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

[Joy Lucas]

Dear Shannon, all single rx have components, that's life, made up of
many things, so not just the rx you mention but all - on another level
you could argue that the original tarentula proving was done on a
spider that had just eaten its male partner and the one next in line
hadn't had such a meal - would that have made any difference to the
proving - maybe, maybe not, to a certain extent it doesn't matter, it
is a known or unknown component.

I still agree with Chris and of course Hahnemann regarding the provings
of combo rx but some might be interesting but on a slightly different
tack i think we have enough rx anyway, I think our materia medicas are
full and fluent enough, just my opinion of course. Best wishes, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Shannon, Didi, Hahnemannian,
I second that!

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free from doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[muthu kumar]

I am not in crisis - identity or otherwise - thanks.

true - as you say I might as well swing a pendulum- and I am sure that
all your prescriptions are 100% accurate and the science is as exact
as it can ever be and the patients and conditions are always ideal-

What an idyllic world-
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:

[Joy Lucas]

quite childish, what has idealism got to do with this - if anything the 'ideal' would be, if
you can't define the potential simillimum within a range of e.g. 3 rx, separately not in
combination, then why prescribe at all - that is a decent enough question - when we fail
with cases we should refer or move on in some other way - and the other question still
waiting to be answered is Chris' - how does the prescribing of combination rx figure
within the Organon. It is a good job it's the weekend, lots of time to think of an answer.
Off to treat a bad case of travel sickness - what shall I give, ooh, I know tabacum mixed
with petroleum and cocculus and let's throw in nux vomica for fun. Joy

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "hahnemannian2002"
wrote:

[muthu kumar]

This IS being childish - and if that is the best you can do as a
parting shot - you are getting out of touch -

Have a nice one - you have enough there to stop even me throwing up
treat a bad case of travel sickness - what shall I give, ooh, I know
tabacum mixed

[Shannon Nelson]

It had always been my understanding that, if a combo remedy is proved
just as any other remedy is proved, then it should be usable as a
single remedy, on basis of that proving. You are saying otherwise, but
in absence of someone actually *doing* it, I guess it's all theoretical
anyway.
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Chris,

Sorry, you're right--you did make some very specific and very useful
replies to my questions.
Below:
Yes, and a very useful addition to the discussion on Didi's combo!
Sorry again--I am tripping over unfinished replies (but we're settling
down again now on the home front). My replies:
remedy at a time; so combos indeed go against those instructions.
the others do nothing" (that is the common explanation), then the
"needed remedy" is homeopathic in exactly the same way that it would be
if selected on basis of symptom similarity.

I don't really want to get into "defending combos"--I do not use them
myself, and am very familiar with their disadvantages; however I can
well understand why some people *do* use them, and I feel that
education about them would be far more useful than hand-slapping. I
also feel that, if someone chooses to use a tool that I don't use, that
is certainly their prerogative; we all have to "begin where we are",
and I would rather engage in learning and education, rather than
"playing cop"--but, that's just my temperament, I guess.

I think the conversation the list needs to resolve is not "what is
homeopathy" (good luck with that one!), but simply whether there are
"forbidden topics".
Best wishes,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Chris,
***1) This is not what you said. 2) I have no idea what you mean by
that.
***If I call anythin impertinent and unfair to boot, it is "quoting
out of context" and giving only part of the quote.

I wrote:

"Either Hahnemann didn't practice as he preached **or we misinterprete
what he said in the Organon**"

and then you

+++My evidence for this statement is in the Preface for the Project v.
Boenninghausen on my homepage www.bar-do.net, for all to read. I also
posted on all lists etc. that it is there for all to read. If you do
not consider this evidence as proof - well that is your privilege. The
same goes for anyone else. Who is interested can go there, read the
Preface and make up his/her own mind!

So I'll say just this: either v. Boenninghausen made up the story or
he was a very sloppy case-taker. Or how do *you* explain that he did
not mention this phthisis in his anamnesis, an illness that he in his
publications claimed to have suffered from just 2 years previously,
which he claims had brought him to the fringe of death, but mentioned
his gout, his susceptibility to colds, his being apt to problems from
lifting? How do *you* explain that he mentioned Nux.vom and Dulcamara
as remedies that had previously worked for him, but did not mention
Pulsatilla and Sulphur?

***Adding to what JROZ wrote:

Very often combos are prescribed on "what has worked before", in other
words on "cured symptoms". Even the purest of classical homeopaths
prescribe partly also on those cured symptoms. E.g. almost none of the
prescriptions for Arnica for trauma are based on provings. So the
line dividing single remedy prescription and combo prescription is
very blurry.
***I do not know any polypharmacist who does. They would not be able
to make a living. In Germany most people do not go to homeopaths for
acutes, they go go MDs. and where it has something to do with muscles,
spinal chord etc. they sometimes go to acupuncturists or
chiropractors. The polypharmacists as well as the classicals mostly
treat chronic states.

In fact, we have just read about such a case

***Indeed - and how about the effect of Na. sulph. - single remedy,
also on this list?

I have had the
***And had they gone to MDs and taken ABs and cortisone and/or any of
the myriad drugs/surgery that would have been the alternative in many
cases, it would have been straigt delight comparatively? Or had they
taken the non-homeopathic OTC-drugs - another alternative?
***There is no agreement on the boundaries of "homeopathy". In Germany
all potentized remedies are by official definition "homeopathic
remedies", they can only be sold in pharmacies, they are labelled as
such. (Anthrophosphic Medicine may be different - I am not sure) The
only difference between combos and single remedies is that -
so far - single remedies do not have to carry an indication.

Traditionally in Germany Naturopaths have been known by the people as
"homeopaths".

In other countries things are probably different - from Germany and
between the various countries.

Homeopathy is thus not defined. Especially on an international list it
would be hard to define it. It is up to Ardavan.
hard.

.and most people who are arguing for their inclusion also state they

***In Germany this is called "über den Tellerrand schauen", translated
for the list "to look further than the rim of one's plate":-).

It's not making a whole lot of sense.
***From what other posters wrote - I have not been on this list for
long
- other things have been discussed that are not homeopathic?

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 <==========

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

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Luise,
I remember Julian had some response about this, but I can't find it,
don't remember the details, and I don't think you ever replied--do you
happen to remember what his remark was? If he'd made it up, wouldn't
the h'th who treated him have objected??
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]