pc/ge

[Theresa Partington]

Dear Soroush,
Thank you for pasting this below - at that time of night I couldn't think
where to cut and paste from and was typing it out!
It's funny how two people can read the same thing and see it differently.
How I see it is as follows\;
Hahnemann was *not* addressing a load of late 20th century classically
trained homeopaths and telling them that they did not need to take every
case in all its entirety every single time in whatever circumstances and
select from the whole gamut of materia medica. He was addressing a medical
profession that was accustomed to saying cholera = x remedy, scarlet fever =
y remedy and malaria = z remedy: prescription written, end of story.
He was therefore saying that even if you were dealing with an epidemic, you
would need to take 2 or 3 cases thoroughly before you could ascertain which
symptoms were characteristic of the disease as it was manifesting in that
particular epidemic and only then, short list to hand, could you start
speeding things up. Even then, though, you would still need to ask a few
pertinent questions to differentiate which particular remedy each particular
patient might need. i.e. he was arguing the case for a measure of
individualisation even within an epidemic situation.
Furthermore one epidemic will differ from another ostensibly of the same
type.'as a careful examination will show that every prevailing disease is in
many respects a phenomenon of a unique character, differing vastly from all
previous epidemics, to which certain names have been falsely
applied'.
The unique pathology of the disease is relevant but not the whole story.
I can extend this to non-infectious diseases with distinctive pathology
quite easily, as I believe he did. (I really wouldn't care to enter into the
'psora' debate, though - I leave that to others!)
I feel we have come full circle historically. Once again we are being
attracted by one- size- fits all solutions. Maybe this is a consequence of
the extremes of so- called classical homeopathy as it was sometimes taught
in the 70s and 80s.

As for AIDS(addressed to Shannon) - I agree it is a tricky one. The medical
profession in general would agree that there was a common cause and
therefore this would apply:

'All those affected with
the disease prevailing at a given time have certainly contracted it from one
and the same source and hence are suffering from the same disease; but the
whole extent of such an epidemic disease and the totality of its symptoms
(the knowledge whereof, which is essential for enabling us to choose the
most suitable homoopathic remedy for this array of symptoms, is obtained by
a complete survey of the morbid picture) cannot be learned from one single
patient, but is only to be perfectly deduced (abstracted) and ascertained
from the sufferings of several patients of different constitutions'.

but the whole range of symptoms is surely much wider than Hahnemann could
ever have anticipated. However, he gave no one single remedy for Psora.
I haven't ever treated an AIDS patient and am not sure whether i would treat
skin eruptions / digestive stuff /or whatever on their own merits as the
manner of expression of the vital force at that time or whether I would go
for the grand picture of vulnerability, or what balance of the two. I am
fairly sure I would not go for the one size shoe, though.

bw
Theresa

Dear Theresa
I said "read 101 -104" - However, you have qtd the footnote to 104

Here is what I mean - I have included Aph 100 for sake of completeness.

Aph 100

In investigating the totality of the symptoms of epidemic and sporadic
diseases it is quite immaterial whether or not something similar has ever
appeared in the world before under the same or any other name. The novelty
or peculiarity of a disease of that kind makes no difference either in the
mode of examining or of treating it, as the physician must any way regard to
pure picture of every prevailing disease as if it were something new and
unknown, and investigate it thoroughly for itself, if he desire to practice
medicine in a real and radical manner, never substituting conjecture for
actual observation, never taking for granted that the case of disease before
him is already wholly or partially known, but always carefully examining it
in all its phases; and this mode of procedure is all the more requisite in
such cases, as a careful examination will show that every prevailing disease
is in many respects a phenomenon of a unique character, differing vastly
from all previous epidemics, to which certain names have been falsely
applied - with the exception of those epidemics resulting from a contagious
principle that always remains the same, such as smallpox, measles, etc.

Aph 101

It may easily happen that in the first case of an epidemic disease that
presents itself to the physician's notice he does not at once obtain a
knowledge of its complete picture, as it is only by a close observation of
several cases of every such collective disease that he can become conversant
with the totality of its signs and symptoms. The carefully observing
physician can, however, from the examination of even the first and second
patients, often arrive so nearly at a knowledge of the true state as to have
in his mind a characteristic portrait of it, and even to succeed in finding
a suitable, homoopathically adapted remedy for it.

Aph 102

In the course of writing down the symptoms of several cases of this kind the
sketch of the disease picture becomes ever more and more complete, not more
spun out and verbose, but more significant (more characteristic), and
including more of the peculiarities of this collective disease; on the one
hand, the general symptoms (e.g., loss of appetite, sleeplessness, etc.)
become precisely defined as to their peculiarities; and on the other, the
more marked and special symptoms which are peculiar to but few diseases and
of rarer occurrence, at least in the same combination, become prominent and
constitute what is characteristic of this malady.1 All those affected with
the disease prevailing at a given time have certainly contracted it from one
and the same source and hence are suffering from the same disease; but the
whole extent of such an epidemic disease and the totality of its symptoms
(the knowledge whereof, which is essential for enabling us to choose the
most suitable homoopathic remedy for this array of symptoms, is obtained by
a complete survey of the morbid picture) cannot be learned from one single
patient, but is only to be perfectly deduced (abstracted) and ascertained
from the sufferings of several patients of different constitutions.

1 The physician who has already, in the first cases, been able to choose a
remedy approximating to the homoopathic specific, will, from the subsequence
cases, be enabled either to verify the suitableness of the medicine chosen,
or to discover a more appropriate, the most appropriate homoopathic remedy.

Aph 103

In the same manner as has here been taught relative to the epidemic disease,
which are generally of an acute character, the miasmatic chronic maladies,
which, as I have shown, always remain the same in their essential nature,
especially the psora, must be investigated, as to the whole sphere of their
symptoms, in a much more minute manner than has ever been done before, for
in them also one patient only exhibits a portion of their symptoms, a
second, a third, and so on, present some other symptoms, which also are but
a (dissevered, as it were), portion of the totality of the symptoms which
constitute the entire extent of this malady, so that the whole array of the
symptoms belonging to such a miasmatic, chronic disease, and especially to
the psora, can only be ascertained from the observation of very many single
patients affected with such a chronic disease, and without a complete survey
and collective picture of these symptoms the medicines capable of curing the
whole malady homoopathically (to wit, the antipsorics) cannot be discovered;
and these medicines are, at the same time, the true remedies of the several
patients suffering from such chronic affections.

Aph 104

When the totality of the symptoms that specially mark and distinguish the
case of disease or, in other words, when the picture of the disease,
whatever be its kind, is once accurately sketched,1 the most difficult part
of the task is accomplished. The physician has then the picture of the
disease, especially if it be a chronic one, always before him to guide him
in his treatment; he can investigate it in all its parts and can pick out
the characteristic symptoms, in order to oppose to these, that is to say, to
the whole malady itself, a very similar artificial morbific force, in the
shape of a homoopathically chosen medicinal substance, selected from the
lists of symptoms of all the medicines whose pure effects have been
ascertained. And when, during the treatment, he wishes to ascertain what has
been the effect of the medicine, and what change has taken place in the
patient's state, at this fresh examination of the patient he only needs to
strike out of the list of the symptoms noted down at the first visit those
that have become ameliorated, to mark what still remain, and add any new
symptoms that may have supervened.

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Theresa

I am glad we are singing from the same hymn sheet! THE ORGANON.

The point is that when dealing with epidemics one needs to build an
expertise in 'relevant' case taking. Peter has complied his symptoms for
'HIV/AIDS' sufferers after he took many cases 80+ for his conventional
Homoeopathic treatment.

Hn had his own specifics for dealing with Syphilis and Gon.
If the 'picture' does not change in the main, the remedy stays the same.
Rgds
Soroush

[Theresa Partington]

Hi Soroush
Soroush wrote:
I accept that if the diagnosis is incorrect then the relevant PC remedy will
not work.
If it can be proven that when the diagnosis is correct the remedy works,
logic would indicate that when it does not work, the diagnosis is likely to
be incorrect (discounting other factors that may adversely affect the
effects of a remedy, eg camphor etc).

I could say:
If the diagnosis is correct then the relevant PC remedy will not work.
If it can be proven that the remedy works when the diagnosis is incorrect , logic would dictate that when it does work, the diagnosis is likely to be incorrect.

Same (slightly dodgy) logic! And reminiscent of the traditional allopathic responses to 'alternative' miracle cures and their own failures.
With regard to your comment about us singing from the same hymnsheet, I agree we are looking at the same book but you are reading a justification for a one-size-fits all remedy for a named disease, I am reading an insistance that even within an epidemic situation there has to be a measure of individualisation. Which one of us is singing 'While shepherds washed their socks by night...?' I am sure it's not me!
BW
Theresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Sorry Theresa - Your Logic fails me!

I accept that under traditional GE prescription, there is room for to choose
among a few remedies to cover all individuals.

But it could be said that this is because the traditional GE remedy does NOT
cover all aspects of the epidemic disease. Where as the PC remedy is
DESIGNED to do so.
Rgds
Soroush

[Piet Guijt]

Hi Soroush,

This has nothing to do with the nature of a remedy, but only with the level
of similarity.
The same effect is possible with a traditinal remedy, but most GE remedies
are only partial fitting the disease.
We don't need to have a correct diagnose of the named disease to be
succesfull, there are existing methods to better then that.
We need a remedy that is based on the CHANGE in the patient as the result of
the disease, instead of the INDIVIDUALITY (in some degree) of the patient.
This is what Sehgal is doing (a toxin based remedy) and this strategy
Chappel has rediscovered from a different angle.

kind regards, Piet

[JAHatERI]

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