was nux vomica pic

[Theresa Partington]

Hello Andy,

Blimey! Talk about taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut!!!
Human Traces is a novel by Sebastian Faulks, a very well-known writer.
It is about two young men in the latter part of the 19th century taking up mad-doctoring at a time when lots of new ideas were about. One looks at evolution and neurology to account for disease and the other goes down the route of what was known as the Austrian school, following on from an interest in 'hysteria' and hypnotism. None of these developments came out of the blue and it was interesting to draw parallels with what was going on with homeopathy over this 40-50 year period.

Or as you put it yourself:
'I don't doubt that all of the above fields which are encompassed and had
early inclusion in homeopathic medicine had other parallel or prior
contributors of course. Hahnemann gleaned from the state of the art at the
time and could read in several cardinal languages.'

I would add that I imagine his immediate successors were influenced by the state of the art at the time, too.

Anyway, Human Traces is not about homeopathy and is a *novel* which I did, and do recommend.

If I had meant to challenge every single word of your email I would have cut and pasted the lot! Hope you didn't spend too long drafting the riposte.

bw

theresa
I wrote

Not sure this is correct. I think they grew up together and Paris was also an
((( Hi Theresa!
If you mean homeopathy did not really presage psychology, then please
provide additional information. I agree from a mainstream perspective, and
regarding the "lineage" to Freud, Jung, et al and psychoanalysis,
behaviorism and humanism -- homeopathy may be sidelight. So am interested
what the book you cite says. All the same, if we define psychology as study
of syndromes of behavior and mental outlook, then I would say it would be
difficult to argue that homeopathy did not include that study ("-ology") in
its therapeutic method to a degree - and degree of success - that had never
been present before its inception. The study of mind symptoms of provings
and in cases was extensive in homeopathy starting in the late 1790's.

Homeopathy presaged psychology in time, if not in "lineage" because it (when
applicable) includes psychological state as part of the disease picture
under treatment -- whether or not there was a diagnosable psychiatric
condition. Provings contain mental symptoms. Many prescriptions included
them. That was early on -- and well before Paris (which was approx
1835-1843).

Homeopathy presaged microbiology because Hahnemann attached importance of
transmission and demonstrated effect to Von Leewenhouk's "animalcules" some
number of decades before Pasteur. The effects (miasmatic complex) are of
course still not recognized by patent pharmaceutical medicine which treats
only the densest of the human bodies using biochemistry. The nonphysical
nature of miasmatic transmission (and homeopathic treatment in general)
makes Hahnemann's part in history in this regard obscure in the mainstream.
Of course there were many others involved (Bechamp, etc).

Homeopathy presaged epidemiology because Hahnemann developed the Organon
paragraph 101-104 group totality. This is pursuit of the remedy for the
disease outbreak itself -- as opposed to an individual case. This requires
study of the outbreak in all its facets. It undertakes group treatment
based on concatenation of cases. Of course Hahnemann did not develop this
in a vacuum -- any other historical contributions would be interesting.

If you are discussing Hamer, it is clear to me that he has empirically and
conclusively proven the connections between psychosomatic forcing functions
and results in disease. This is evident by studying his material in any
depth (and much of this is available online). Hamer does not include
miasmatic susceptibility in his model. But has statistically proven the
"circuits" between etiological factors and somatic loci. He has classified
diseases according to embryological germ layer. This is nobel prize work if
it did not threaten the business of medicine because Hamer is an oncologist
-- and because of a personal situation involving European aristocracy
involved in the death of his son. In simple terms, Hamer has taken "Louise
Hay" type indications to a deeper and exhaustively substantiated level.

In homeopathy we have etiology/triggering cause as one of the cardinal
elements in a "complete case" -- eg. location, extension/radiation,
sensation (which Sankaran has expanded in importance and meaning),
modality(time environment circumstance etc), concomitant, alternation,
etiology, psychology (etc). Psychosomatic assumptions are a cornerstone of
homeopathy which can treat the nonphysical bodies which include thought
forms and the effects of psychological trauma. An entire school of thought
(Sankaran) within homeopathy holds that "delusion" is connected to somatic
disease pattern. The "Ailments from" section of the repertory is the
beginnings of a proof of psychosomatic effect that goes back to the
beginnings of homeopathy in the late 1790s.

I don't doubt that all of the above fields which are encompassed and had
early inclusion in homeopathic medicine had other parallel or prior
contributors of course. Hahnemann gleaned from the state of the art at the
time and could read in several cardinal languages.

Psychology for example had antecedents separately (and I would like to hear
more about what they were -- if that is what the book you cite refers to).
Please clarify any error I may be making. Please amplify what is the meaning
of "Human Traces" to the discussion.

Thanks

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

[AH]

on 2/1/06 1:11 AM, theresa partington at theresa@frogsisland.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
Hello Andy,
Blimey! Talk about taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut!!!
((( Hi Theresa! When someone makes a dissenting point to contribute to a
discussion, it is basic that they substantiate that point or they are not
debating, merely detracting. Your post was hardly backed up or even too
comprehensible. It was not clear what you were challenging *per se* (I
took a guess and asked for your fleshing out).

It turns out that your "reference" is a book of fiction. Blimey! Could
possibly be of value to the point of discussion, but now you say this novel
took place at the end of the 19th century, a full century after the
inception of homeopathy. So what *were* you challenging about statements
that homeopathy presaged developments in the 20th century? As I sought to
show you, "presaging" does not imply causality or influence of something
that follows -- only predating of it. I was willing to hear your point. I
don't know if you really had one besides "Not sure this was correct".

I did not spend much time restating my points for clarity. But obviously I
respect you and wanted to make sure I had not missed something. Perhaps you
could in the future take just a little more time substantiating a point of
debate? That way it might actually shed light on a topic without risking
others having to feel an obligation to reply. People might spend time doing
so, and if your point turns out to be trivial, you have only detracted from
yourself.

Thanks,
Andy

==========
theresa partington at theresa@frogsisland.freeserve.co.uk wrote:

Not sure this is correct. I think they grew up together and Paris was also
an exciting place for 'mad-doctors' in Hahnemann's latter years. I don't
know if anyone else has read Sebastian Faulk's Human Traces, but I think it
should be on college reading lists.
BW
Theresa