on 1/28/06 3:31 AM, Finrod at
finrod@webstar.co.uk wrote:
((( IMO this reflects mostly the following issues endemic in homeopathy (not
Shannons doing):
====
**lack of elucidation or perception of what are truly the GNOMONIC SYMPTOMS
in the case; what is more loosely termed "what is to be cured" (as Soroush
discusses regarding taking the full case). These symptom points can be
extremely difficult to determine in many cases. We must hierarchize the
symptoms in a case according to intensity, peculiarity, and importance to
the chief complaint and limitation of the patient's life. Sometimes this
takes time and other remedies (see Organon paragraph 179-182 and especially
182) to bring out -- or it never comes out and homeopathy fails.
====
*** we tend to focus on remedies known and well characterized; and
unwillingness to concede that the remedy in a given case cannot be one
already well known and must be one LESSER KNOWN or which must be determined
on one symptom only or by GROUPING ASSOCIATION (inference and clinical
symptoms e.g. Scholten and Sankaran groupings systems or Mangialavori's
taxonomic lateral association).
====
**not using THIRD PARTY INPUT even in adult cases e.g.:
Organon § 93
If the disease has been brought on a short time or, in the case of a chronic
affection, a considerable time previously, by some obvious cause, then the
patient - or his friends when questioned privately - will mention it either
spontaneously or when carefully interrogated.
====
** not delving deeply enough to determine HIDDEN ATTRIBUTES for (as Vega
Rozenberg used to say) -"every patient is a liar" e.g.:
Organon § 93 footnote 1
Any causes of a disgraceful character, which the patient or his friends do
not like to confess, at least not voluntarily, the physician must endeavor
to elicit by skilfully framing his questions, or by private information. To
these belong poisoning or attempted suicide, onanism, indulgence in ordinary
or unnatural debauchery, excess in wine, cordials, punch and other ardent
beverages, or coffee, - over-indulgence in eating generally, or in some
particular food of a hurtful character, - infection with venereal disease or
itch, unfortunate love, jealousy, domestic infelicity, worry, grief on
account of some family misfortune, ill-usage, balked revenge, injured pride,
embarrassment of a pecuniary nature, superstitious fear, - hunger, - or an
imperfection in the private parts, a rupture, a prolapse, and so forth.
====
**not having a good set of CONFIRMATORY SYMPTOMS or using a CONFIRMATORY
SYSTEM. These are the improvements which help provide some solution to our
using the client as the guinea pig and financier for our prescriptions which
are not backed up by any other measure. This makes homeopathy doomed to
remain more an art than a scientific medicine. It will always have an art
component, naturally -- but if homeopathy is to mature fully, we must have a
"check" on what we are able to determine by artful sleuthing on what we can
deduce or infer only from interview and physical exam. Or we will fail
regularly and because we are so used to it and failure is accepted in
homeopathic medicine -- we accept it instead of it bothering us. Denial and
assumption that homeopathy is "omnipotent" is not a solution.
I have spoken on this last point ad infinitum in hopes that it might catch
on. But here again is the example from the London Classical Homeopathy
Clinic which uses an objective confirmatory system (Biolumanetic
photography) and use up to 9 "pictures" per client visit so as to never give
a remedy that has not been confirmed prior to administration. They confirm
every rx by a blurry photo that is made clear by the client holding the
correct medicine BEFORE they have to take it and wait 6 weeks and come back
and pay more money having lost that time. They routinely rule out remedies
that any homeopath would swear were accurate by semiology which seems
conclusive viz:
"We have, of course, given polycrests in our clinic
but these prescriptions do not constitute the majority of our
prescriptions. For instance, we have given Pulsatilla literally twice
over the last 3 years. This is not because we have not tested it. It
is just that the remedy often refuses to yield clarity even in those
cases where one would swear blind that this was a "Pulsatilla case."
I recall one particular case where any rational homeopath would
definitely have given Pulsatilla - indeed you would have been mad not
to - but the prescription which yielded total clarity was not
Pulsatilla but the newly proved remedy Kauri (Agathis australis).
Similarly with Natrum muriaticum. Often the remedy which was
eventually given was another Muriaticum salt, for example Cuprum
muriaticum or Aurum muriaticum This would explain to me how prior to
the technology often I would give Natrum muriaticum in what appeared
to be a classic Natrum muriaticum case, only to be severely
disappointed by the result.
The precision which is required in homeopathy was also confirmed
when I decided to bring into the clinic some patients of mine whom I
had been treating over a number of years prior to the technology but
for whom I had the sense that I had not yet found the optimum remedy.
(Truthfully, how many of these patients do you find on your books?) I
recall a mother and daughter who came. I had Charles retake their
cases and we spent about four hours struggling to achieve clarity (with the
bioliminal photographic confirmatory).
The daughter, who suffered from sore throats and dysmennorhea I had
treated mainly with Silica and Tuberculinum over the years with some
improvement but no lasting disappearance of her symptoms. The two
remedies which eventually cleared up the case were Iris Germanica and
Calcarea silicata. The mother had various complaints including
recurrent bronchitis and anxiety. I had lost count of the remedies
which I had tried with her and I never had felt satisfied with the
results. The eventual remedy which was given which was to make a
profound difference to her health was Betula Alba. We found this all
rather alarming but it did explain the difficulties I had encountered
in both these cases." (Kieran Linnane RS Hom London Classical Homeopathy
Clinic that uses Biolumanetics and has for 6+ years).
======
(Andy)- This should illustrate for all of us how difficult it is to find a
simillimum in many cases, and why we fail using semiology alone - and
patients give up on homeopathy and we fail.
Since every practice attracts clients according to who they are (like
attracts like in the quantum (etheric/astral) world - Reich) -- the London
Biolumanetic Classical Homeopathy cases will likely be statistically biased
toward smaller, new, or unknown remedies (in the same way that the elder Dr.
Sehgal attracted 30% or so Belladonna cases so he could claim like the blind
man and the elephant that 30% of all people needed Belladonna(!)). The
biolumanetic clinic will probably to some extent attract very difficult
cases. But that does not diminish the point of the above quote by Kieran
Linnane of that clinic. She illustrates how blind we are in homeopathy
working only from semiology with no objective confirmatory to protect
ourselves and our clients from mistakes.
Below is a few more excerpts from previous posts on this topic over the last
few years for those with interest. Not intending to bore people. This is
not an advertisement for Biolumanetic photography over any other
confirmatory method. Though Biolumanetics appears to be the "state of the
art" in objective nonhuman confirmatory systems, it costs about $20K.
Applied kinesiology methods in expert hands can probably come close to these
results, and perhaps there are other systems yet to be developed or already
in existence that can do as well while being affordable. I post excerpts
in the context of the present discussion because it illustrates how BLIND we
are using homeopathy only on semiologic grounds in determining remedy and in
gauging response. It adds perspective to what we are doing -- (or should).
==============
EXTENSIVE EXCERPTS ON OVERALL EFFICACY OF HOMEOPATHY AND USE OF OBJECTIVE
CONFIRMATORY SYSTEM BIOLUMANETICS TO BOTH PROVE THAT AND BE A SOLUTION
(FROM PRIOR MINUTUS DISCUSSIONS (this is LONG)):
----------------------------
From Minutus sometime in 2004:
Ellen Madono wrote: Biolumanetics is "better" because of the clear
relationship between homeopathic practice and "test" results. Yes?
((( Better because:
--separate and prior to use in homeopathic setting, the generated
biolumanetic field with client standing in it is shown to
yield a photograph with blurriness level directly correlated to coherence of
biofield or "aura". This is correlatable to level of harmonious and
comfortable functioning or health by separate means of comparing
photographs of many people with differing levels of health and varying
diagnosed maladies or "remedy states".
--the experience of ruling out rx candidates chosen via hom. semiological
process because of blurry photos
AND
at the same time positively choosing a remedy favorable both by hom.
semiology AND biolumanetic clear photograph (coherence when holding
the candidate remedy while standing in the field generated by the
biolumanetic device) --
has shown to be reliable and objective by the 6+ years experience of the
London classical homeopathic clinic using biolumanetic photography
Every confirmatory is going to have error based on uncontrollable variables
or unseen factors present which I will not elaborate on here. But
maximizing objectivity, reproducibility, convenience, and speed to create a
perfectly reliable confirmatory system in category 2 above which was usable
by anyone--- seems to require a technology as opposed to manual
technique.
======
I reproduce below a discussion from another post I made which includes
excerpts from the Biolumanetics website of Wansbrough and Linnane, the two
London classical homeopaths who have shown its efficacy as a confirmatory.
It provides is a good example of why we now, and ultimately, NEED other than
a homeopathic semiologic kind of confirmatory if homeopathy is to get off
the ground as a reliable form of therapeutics for any practitioner, not just
exceptionally talented practitioners or those at the end of their career.
This is needed to avoid the abysmal failures in reliability in at least a
third of our chronic cases, and probably closer to two-thirds of our chronic
cases, which do not receive the chronic bullseye simillimum.
My conversation with Charles Wansbrough some 2 years ago indicated that at
that time, overall maximum bullseye rate remained at 60% EVEN USING the
biolumanetic confirmatory system (versus Mangialavori's testimony of his own
clinic, in which he roughly estimates a bullseye rate of approximately 33%)
(quote from an interview with Nick Churchill, which is probably available by
searching on net or on Massimo Mangialavori's website)-pay attention in
particular to the last two sentences of Mangialavori :
=====
Nick Churchill to Massimo Mangialavori, innovative italian homeopath who is
known for creative prescribing using taxonomic and group laterality:
"Question: How close do you feel to really getting a grip on your practice,
on all your patients, the difficult cases too? How close are you to
thinking, yes, Iunderstand what's going on and I know how to overcome this?
Mangialavori:
'Yes, I understand', I can say very seldom, because the way my work is
arranged, I only see my patients perhaps four or five times a year, if there
is not such an acute problem and it's a more of a chronic case. So even if
that is enough to watch and observe them, it's not as long as the time a
psychotherapist takes, seeing a patient twice a week perhaps for years. So
again, it comes down to what you think it's important to treat, in the sense
that a homeopathic prescription is based on a kind of phenomenological
understanding. We need what we can observe. The reason why you can make a
physical prescription, even if you don't understand so deeply what's going
on, is because you're applying something according to the law of similars.
It's what we can see, it's a superficial model, but it works very well.
That's the reason why homeopathy is such a good medicine.
The understanding of this process is something else. It's not even
absolutely necessary in order to prescribe a remedy. But what is absolutely
necessary is to understand how it works in this person. What could be the
mental state, what could be the real suffering of this person ? so that it
can help you to prescribe this remedy better in the future. I don¹t think
that increasing your ability as a doctor after a certain period of time
means you can cure more patients. Otherwise after fifty years of work you
could cure something close to 100% of people.
I think that what really increases after you reach a certain level is the
depth of your prescription, the depth of your intention, the depth of the
contact with the person you are treating. There's a lot of discussion about
whether there are patients whom you can help, and ones that you can't. You
can increase this and try to understand that it is not possible for one
person to cure any patient. In my daily practice, I have a lot of failures.
And I have a lot of patients that I cannot help as much as I would like to.
I have been encouraged by my work with these so-called small remedies, with
using the same substance in acute and chronic conditions and with a long
follow-up. It has proved to be true. So I'm encouraged to move in this
direction.
But it's not the majority of cases.
very good cases, one third aren't good enough, and in one third there is
nothing."
=========================================
Reprint from another earlier post of mine;
"For those who have some idea that Homeopathy in general is already "mature"
as a healing modality, read this from the people using biolumanetics, an
objective confirmatory system whereby a person can be photographed holding
a candidate remedy, and the focus/blurriness of the photo indicates the
coherence the remedy produces in the energetic system of the person, and
this is directly correlated to the level of similitude. This technology
costs $17K, has been used successfully in London for some 6 years in a
classical clinic, and yet no other homeopaths employ it. Alas, homeopaths
are as stuck and inertial as the rest of humanity. I have posted the below
article before.
I post excerpts from it again not to advertise
biolumanetics or to suggest that other confirmatory methods might not be
useful or developed in the future, but because it illustrates how BLIND we
are using homeopathy only on semiologic grounds in determining remedy and
in gauging response. Very intuitive homeopaths who are also masters of
materia medica and who leave no stone unturned can approach an ACTUAL level
of efficacy at present of 60% IF they attracted the whole bell curve
spectrum of clients in a large practice. Some of us think we do better
than this, and some very experienced and highly intuitive people who use
all remedies including the newest ones might well do better than this. All
of us can do better than this on a smaller sample and volume. But we have
no independent means to prove we gave the optimal rx. We rely only on
apparent response and Hering Law phenomena, and as well we all have lots of
obvious failures.
=================================
Discussion of use of biolumanetic photography--excerpt of an article by
Kieran Linnane of the London clinic which has
pioneered Biolumanetic confirmatory use in a high-volume Classical
Homeopathic practice:
By Kieran Linnane
6. The issue of the simillimum
The above leads me on to a discussion of the simillimum. This is a
very complex issue and Charles and I discuss this ad infinitum with no
absolute conclusions. We have read Massimo Mangialavori's beautiful
cases where he finds a perfect remedy for his patients and then this
remedy is repeated on and off over a period of years, with the patient
advised to take the remedy whenever he suffers from an acute.
Unfortunately, this does not reflect our own practice. We have found
that if a very precise remedy is given, the "state" for which the
patient is being treated tends to dissolve rather rapidly. Obviously,
if the state is very engrained this process might take a little
longer, but it usually does not take years and years. If the state
has been dissolved we do not understand why the same remedy should be
given again. It is our experience that once this state has dissolved,
another state (underlying this state) will rise to the surface
requiring another prescription. It is almost as if all the patient's
energy is going into coping with a particular problem. Once this
problem is resolved, another deeper issue will arise to the surface
requiring treatment.
To give an example from our own practice: we took the case of a
woman who had problems with anxiety and guilt around the rearing of
her baby son. We gave her Calcarea bromatum which successfully
reduced both the anxiety and guilt. She was a different woman when
she returned after a month. However, about four months later she
returned to our clinic wishing for more treatment as a sexual issue
which was a problem for her had not been touched by our prescription.
We knew that our patient required another remedy to heal this
particular layer which led us to prescribe another remedy, Natrum
fluoricum. Now, I suppose Massimo would argue that had we been better
homeopaths we would have been able to find a remedy which encompassed
all aspects of this case: the guilt, anxiety and sexual issues. We
are now back with the tyranny of the "constitutional remedy". Whilst
Charles and I attempt to give prescriptions based upon as much of the
totality of the case as we can, this is not always possible. Either
it is because of our lack of knowledge, or perhaps in a lot of cases
it is because there is no one remedy which covers such a totality. It
is perhaps significant that Massimo acknowledges that only a third of
his cases do wonderfully, another third are mediocre and the remaining
third do nothing at all. Perhaps this is more a reflection of my last
point, that in certain cases it is impossible to find a remedy which
covers the totality.
"...I had been practising homeopathy since 1986 but had felt increasingly
dispirited
with the mediocrity of my results. I knew that when homeopathy worked
there was no other medicine to equal its power but to find the correct
simillimum for my patients often felt arduous, confusing and downright
impossible at times.
Our protocol was to take an initial photograph of our patients,
followed by a detailed homeopathic case, and then patients would hold
various remedies while we photographed them. We made the assumption
that a remedy which produced a coherent photograph when held by the
patient was likely to be the simillimum or, at the very least, might
constitute a beneficial remedy for that patient. Coherence was our
benchmark for any remedy which we gave in our clinic and we have seen
from our results that this has proved to be a valid and pragmatic
modus operandi.
Below I will discuss our findings.
1. There are no major or minor remedies, only the correct
remedy for the patient.
Charles and I embarked upon our venture with high hopes of finding a
way to make homeopathy simpler and more effective. However, we soon
found ourselves feeling rather dispirited. This was due to the fact
that only very rarely did the polycrest remedies produce coherent
photographs. At this point we turned in desperation to Jan Scholten's
work on the mineral kingdom and without his input I think we might
never have got off the starting block. We discovered that every
patient entering our clinic needed a very precise prescription. There
appeared to be no short-cuts or handy specifics. Following on from
our study of Jan Scholten's material, we also were obliged to scan all
the newly proved remedies and to read all the back issues of
Homeopathic Links to hunt out unusual remedies. In some cases only
these would produce the clarity which we knew would provoke movement
in our patients.
EMPHASIS ADDED: A DEMONSTRATION OF HOW BLIND WE ARE USING SEMIOLOGY ALONE,
AS MUCH AS WE PAT OURSELVES ON THE BACK FOR A *SEEMINGLY* GOOD RX RESPONSE:
++++++++++++++++
We have, of course, given polycrests in our clinic
but these prescriptions do not constitute the majority of our
prescriptions. For instance, we have given Pulsatilla literally twice
over the last 3 years. This is not because we have not tested it. It
is just that the remedy often refuses to yield clarity even in those
cases where one would swear blind that this was a "Pulsatilla case."
I recall one particular case where any rational homeopath would
definitely have given Pulsatilla - indeed you would have been mad not
to - but the prescription which yielded total clarity was not
Pulsatilla but the newly proved remedy Kauri (Agathis australis).
Similarly with Natrum muriaticum. Often the remedy which was
eventually given was another Muriaticum salt, for example Cuprum
muriaticum or Aurum muriaticum This would explain to me how prior to
the technology often I would give Natrum muriaticum in what appeared
to be a classic Natrum muriaticum case, only to be severely
disappointed by the result.
+++++++++++++++++
The precision which is required in homeopathy was also confirmed
when I decided to bring into the clinic some patients of mine whom I
had been treating over a number of years prior to the technology but
for whom I had the sense that I had not yet found the optimum remedy.
(Truthfully, how many of these patients do you find on your books?) I
recall a mother and daughter who came. I had Charles retake their
cases and we spent about four hours struggling to achieve clarity.
The daughter, who suffered from sore throats and dysmennorhea I had
treated mainly with Silica and Tuberculinum over the years with some
improvement but no lasting disappearance of her symptoms. The two
remedies which eventually cleared up the case were Iris Germanica and
Calcarea silicata. The mother had various complaints including
recurrent bronchitis and anxiety. I had lost count of the remedies
which I had tried with her and I never had felt satisfied with the
results. The eventual remedy which was given which was to make a
profound difference to her health was Betula Alba. We found this all
rather alarming but it did explain the difficulties I had encountered
in both these cases.
EMPHASIS ADDED:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem with having to find a highly individual remedy for each
patient who walks into our clinic is that we literally have to scan
thousands of remedies.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We found ourselves sinking under a morass of
information. At this point Charles started to work on a workbook
where the remedies would be categorised according to their kingdom and
also he began to create "webs" of the different kingdoms. In this way
we started to get some kind of handle on things. We now are able to
intuit much more accurately when a patient requires a mineral, plant
or animal remedy. The plant remedies, however, present us with the
greatest difficulty in that there are literally thousands of remedies
about which we know very little.
2. In an unknown case give an unknown remedy
I have borrowed the above aphorism from Jan Scholten and we can
confirm its validity. At first we were tempted to try and fit the
remedies we knew to the particular case. After 3 1/2 years of work we
find ourselves in the unenviable position of completing taking the
case and knowing more often than we enjoy that we haven't got a clue
what remedy the patient requires. So I would say that after 13 years
of practice I now know when I don't know. This may be a step up but
it can often feel terribly daunting.
EMPHASIS ADDED:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem is how do you find a
remedy that you don't know? We do use the repertory (although Charles
and I would confess not be the greatest of repertorisers) and all the
books and computer programmes at our disposal. But we also using
dowsing at times. We use our pendulums to hunt out unknown remedies
when we are at the end of more analytical methods. Despite being
quite "classical" in our approach, we have no sense of shame in this.
We figure that our job is to find the best possible remedy for the
person in front of us and we will use any methods to achieve this
aim. Often, however, I will use my pendulum just to focus my mind
while I scan the remedies in our workbook and open myself up to
inspiration from the gods. I find myself wondering whether classical
giants like Vithoulkas and Mangialavori actually rely on their
intuition much more than they let on. Charles and I both agree that
the practice of homeopathy is the marriage of the analytical and the
intuitive. Some of our best prescriptions have arisen from a sudden
intuitive flash in one or other of us and of course the best
prescription is that which can be analytically validated as well.
This is not always possible if there is very little information about
the remedy or it has only recently been proved.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For more info:
biolum website:
Links to Remedy Confirmatory Technology in use in Classical Homeopathy in
one London Clinic for 6+years
http://www.biolumanetics.net/tantalus/H ... lumanetics
Validreflection.htm
http://www.biolumanetics.net/tantalus/G ... nation.htm
http://www.biolumanetics.net/tantalus/A ... netics.htm
http://www.biolumanetics.net/tantalus/t ... online.htm
http://www.biolumanetics.net
Ellen Madono wrote:
Semiology: analysis based on context thus including homeopathic sx
analysis?
((( Semiology is "the study of signs" (websters collegiate). I use the term
semiology as a catch-all to include all
indicators of the CLIENT. These indicators include symptoms and signs
characterizing either morbidity or the pre-morbid state typical of the
client of a physical or psychological type. Hahnemann invented homeopathy
as an observational system to use these outward indicators to define the
effects of "nonphysical" medicines made by imprinting biochemical or other
influence onto water or other suitable substrate in order to retain its
pattern while removing its ability to harm the physical organism
biochemically.
By defining a system of observations of the effects of these "potentized"
patterns on ANYONE chosen indiscriminantly, a DATABASE is established.
Then, by means of a concept known back into antiquity that a congruent
pattern resonance between substance and organism would stimulate organismal
return to coherent function, the relation of the signs produced by those
ingesting the pattern and exhibiting phenomena become relevant to such
manifestations occurring naturally or in illness, because those patterns
MATCHED produce a MEDICINE.
ANYONE can be observed according to a methodical set of criteria and their
"profile" COMPARED with the profile of patterns stored in the DATABASE. In
this way, the external signs that are recorded in the database can be used
to determine degree of similitude between the CLIENT and MEDICINE, but only
using the criteria that were in force when the database was created, or
using indications added by clinical application and careful observation.
The MANIFESTATIONS of the NONPHYSICAL organism are thus used inferentially
to RESONATE with that spirit-like organism, without having to
see, feel, sense, or know it. Because we ALL ARE nonphysical organisms and
because thought itself is a vital "substance"--- the consciousness is not
separate from this whole process of assessment.
ON TCM
But a system like Traditional Chinese Medicine, which uses a system of
conceptual physiology which DIRECTLY describes the
nonphysical according to empirical knowledge developed into a system of
metaphysical (invisible) anatomy GOES BEYOND the criteria that Hahnemann
used--which did not yet include use of TCM diagnostic methods. Thus TCM
diagnostic methods are not in the common DATABASE (repertory) as of
yet--though note that Degroote Points and Points of Wiehe, and some other
observations are in the materia medica, and these are likely to be TCM
indicators which are cross-referenced with the TCM meridianal system. In
order to use such indications more universally, would need to widely
incorporate among homeopathic practitioners both TCM nonphysical physiology
and its methods of direct observation of it (eg Pulse diagnosis, point
palpation, etc) in order utilize these as criteria for comparison of client
to medicine.
Hahnemann devised a LANGUAGE of semiology which was NEW--- defining the
effect of nonphysical medicines and establishing a database of the corpus of
each "pattern medicine" as an influential entity. Then, by this new
language, the phenomena of morbidity in humanity could be described.
Hahnemann knew that what was morbid was otherwise INVISIBLE, and definable
only by clairsentient or clairvoyant means, which were not sufficient to
determine what would be the SIMILAR INFLUENCE sufficient to
create resonance. He thus created a system based on the curative power of
resonance which avoids the problem of DIRECT assessment of the vital
organism which he did not have as a tool, as TCM (as the best extant
science of vital physiology) had not yet been introduced to Germany or the
West.
Homeopathy ("same as disease") is not a direct system, but an indirect one,
which defines a language of semiology, and then uses only a COMPARISON
within that language to provide a means to attempt to MATCH a medicinal
influence with a client phenomenon. It was found by Hahnemann that the most
profound beneficial effect, and most frequently ANY beneficial effect,
could occur only when the outward expression of symptoms was a reflection of
the entire corpus of the client vitae, or invisible nonphysical anatomy. An
exception was when the disease had become so pervasive in the vital
economy as to require specific addressing.
The "totality of symptoms" describing the personality of the vital economy
is not a mere laundry list, but a hierarchy of signs which indicates the
typical personality of the vital mechanism of an individual. Without
measuring the invisible directly, we can match a "nonphysical" medicine to a
"nonphysical" vital economy, via a semiological language invented by
Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, and others.
Homeopathic semiology thus has, as it is comparative, two main components.
Homeopathic semiology would thus be the study
of:
A--CLIENT: signs, symptoms, pathology, and psychology of a client and
elicited from the client; with knowledge of what is morbific and what is
not in the context of the client environment; and what is unusual and
characterizes the client as an individual, or his disease as definable in
ways other than their common symptoms.
juxtaposed with
B-- DATABASE of generated phenomena; and phenomena removed in accordance
with recovery without immunosuppression:
--signs, symptoms, pathology, and psychology observed and elicited in a
population of humans given that remedy though it was
dissimilar to their pattern of being (Hahnemannian proving experiment
result) and/or the before/after information from a
population of clients given a specific influence (remedy) that was similar
to their pattern of being and having signs,
symptoms, pathology disappear and health and function improve without
immunosuppression (clinical additions). Clinical
experiential information must be carefully evaluated as Hahnemann warned
that there are too many variables to insure that only the effects of the
medicine are present:
Organon § 142. The investigation of the pure effects of medicines in
diseases is difficult.
Homeopathic semiology has two components (A=CLIENT AND B=DATABASE) and a
third, which is the art of applying the medicine
determined by semiological determination of similitude between client and
medicine as stated by Hahnemann in particular in
Organon 71 and 3:
====
Organon § 71. The three points necessary for curing:(1) the investigation
of the disease; (2) the investigation of the effects of the
medicines, and (3) their appropriate employment.
§ 71. Organon (with added emphasis)
The three points necessary for curing:
A--CLIENT--(1) the investigation of the disease;
B--DATABASE--(2) the investigation of the effects of the medicines, and
C--POSOLOGY/CASE MANAGEMENT/ETC (3) their appropriate employment.
====
=====
Organon § 3 If the physician clearly perceives what is to be cured in
diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease
(knowledge of disease, indication), if he clearly perceives what is curative
in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine
(knowledge of medical powers), and if he knows how to adapt, according to
clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to
what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient, so that the
recovery must ensue - to adapt it, as well in respect
to the suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of
action to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the
medicine indicated), as also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and
quantity of it required (proper dose), and the
proper period for repeating the dose; - if, finally, he knows the obstacles
to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them,
so that the restoration may be permanent, then he understands how to treat
judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art
.
§ 3 Organon (with added emphasis)
"If the physician
---NOSOLOGY/DIAGNOSTICS---clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases,
that is to say, in every individual case of
disease (knowledge of disease, indication),
B=DATABASE---if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is
to say, in each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers), and if he
knows how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is
curative in medicines to
A=CLIENT---what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient,
so that the recovery must ensue - [my addition]:if the remedy exists in the
materia medica which can cure the patient before they die of the disease by
zig-zag or treating the patient instead of treating the vital force of the
disease entity directly which is necessary in advanced pathological cases.
---POSOLOGY/CASE MANAGEMENT---to adapt it, as well in respect to the
suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of action
to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the medicine indicated), as
also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and quantity of it required
(proper dose), and the proper period for repeating the dose;
--OBSTACLES/ADJUNCTS- if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in
each case and is aware how to remove them, so that the restoration may be
permanent, then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and
he is a true practitioner of the healing art .
===============
The third component (C=POSOLOGY/CASE MANAGEMENT/ETC) is the art of applying
the remedy determined by the comparative analysis of client and database.
It further employs the same semiological process according to the knowledge
of signs of an organism returning to health --or devolving into illness
(i.e. Hering/Vijayakar and other observations). It is employed to remove
disorders (ultimately the miasms which underlie them) in the unseen living
organism (the conscious spiritual entity clothed in
a multidimensional body of which the physical is only the outermost
manifestation) by use of spirit-like medicinal patterns which when correctly
applied add no deleterious effect to the organism:
=======
Organon § 16. It is only by the spiritual influences of morbific noxae that
our spirit-like vital force can become ill; and in like manner, only by the
spirit-like (dynamic) operation of medicines that it can be again restored
to health.
=======
Immunosuppression as discussed above can be described as being as Hahnemann
described in introduction to the Organon, 4th edition (as a dissimilar
influence which only hampers the overall health and long term well-being of
the organism) and for example in paragraphs 91 and 92:
WERE that nature whose self-help in diseases is believed by physicians of
the traditional school to be the incomparable healing art, a close imitation
of which should he the physician¹s highest aim, great Nature herself, i.e.
the voice of ineffable wisdom of the great Artificer of the infinite
universe, weshould then feel constrained to be guided by this
infallible voice, though we might be puzzled to understand why we physicians
should, with our artificial interference by medicines, disturb or
injuriously aggravate these presumably incomparable operations of nature¹s
self-help in diseases (vis medicatrix); but this is far from being the case!
That nature, whose self-help was alleged by the traditional
school of medicine to be the incomparable healing art and the only thing
worth imitating, is merely the individual nature of the organic man, is
nothing but the instinctive, irrational, unreasoning vital force subject to
the organic laws of our body, which is ordained by the Creator to maintain
the functions and sensations of the organism in marvellously perfect
condition so long as the man continues in good health, but was not intended
nor adapted for the restoration in the best manner of deranged or lost
health. For should our vital force have its integrity impaired by injurious
influences from without, then this force strives instinctively and
automatically to free itself from the adventitious derangement (disease) by
revolutionary processes, but these very efforts are themselves disease; they
are a second different malady substituted for the original one. The vital
force, I say, produces, in accordance with the laws of the constitution of
the organism to which it is subject, a disease of a different sort, intended
to expel the disease by which it was attacked, which it strives to
accomplish by pain, metastases and so forth, but mainly by evacuations
and the sacrifice of much of the fluid and solid constituents of the body,
with difficult, often dubious, injurious, frequently even disastrous
results.
Organon § 91
The symptoms and feelings of the patient during a previous course of
medicine do not furnish the pure picture of the disease; but on the other
hand,
those symptoms and ailments which he suffered from before the use of the
medicines, or after they had been discontinued for several days,
give the true fundamental idea of the original form of the disease, and
these especially the physician must take note of. When the disease is of a
chronic character, and the patient has been taking medicine up to the time
he is seen, the physician may with advantage leave him some days quite
without medicine, or in the meantime administer something of an unmedicinal
nature and defer to a subsequent period the more precise scrutiny of the
morbid symptoms, in order to be able to grasp in their purity the permanent
uncontaminated symptoms of the old affection and to form a faithful
picture of the disease.
Organon § 92
But if it be a disease of a rapid course, and if its serious character admit
of no delay, the physician must content himself with observing the morbid
condition, altered though it may be by medicines, if he cannot ascertain
what symptoms were present before the employment of the medicines, - in
order that he may at least form a just apprehension of the complete picture
of the disease in its actual condition, that is to say, of the conjoint
malady formed by the medicinal and original diseases, which from the use of
inappropriate drugs is generally more serious and dangerous than was the
original disease, and hence demands prompt and efficient aid; and by thus
tracing out the complete picture of the disease he will be enabled to combat
it with a suitable hom¦opathic remedy, so that the patient shall not fall a
sacrifice to the injurious drugs he was swallowed.
But this is not an even playing field. In most