inflammation/Ellen et al
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:47 am
At 03:53 PM 4/16/2006, you wrote:
Hello Ellen et al,
May I say a few things for the sake of discussion? I am not here to
judge harshly nor am I a grand authority. I am just a old homoeopath. I
just want to open up the field of awareness if possible. This is not
directed at Ellen as I am only offering some general ideas. First of all, I
am glad what Ellen did worked!!! The question is how did it work? Another
question is - what if it did not work and what if there was an aggravation
or new complications? Some of the reasons Hahnemann spoke against
polypharmacy is that one can not tell what remedy might be helping, what
remedy might be aggravating, nor exactly how all the remedies are acting
together on the patient. It makes it very difficult to tell what is going
one especially when things are not working well and there are
complications. So in the homoeopathic system one is always thinking of the
worst case scenarios not the best possible outcomes. This is why Hahnemann
integrated a system of check and balances into his methods so that we would
have a method that is flexible, safe and effective.
For this reason, in traditional homeopathy one may have first given the
1. Arnica, then perhaps the 2. Calendula, and then perhaps 3. Hypericum in
a sequence if needed. It was not uncommon for Boenninghausen to make up
prescriptions in diseases like croup or quinsy that involved a sequence of
remedies like 1. Aconite; 2. Hepar; 3. Spongia, one dose every so many
hours, etc. This trio could be rotated if necessary i.e. 1, 2, 3 1. If
number 1 Aconite worked the patient was not to take 2 and 3, etc. The Baron
claimed this method worked extremely well and "Boenninghausen's Croup
Powders" became very popular. I share these ideas with those who use
combinations because it provides them with a bridge to traditional
Homoeopathy. I ask them to test the methods. Most of the time they find
well chosen single remedies in alternation or sequences works better than
the "shot gun approach". They also find it is easier to follow the case and
find complementary remedies, etc. Then slowly they start to use less rather
than more remedies.
Now perhaps one could just mix Aconite, Hepar and Spongia all together
and just give them to everyone but then we loose one important thing. That
is knowledge. This knowledge may not be important if the mix just works but
we all know that this is not a perfect world and many difficulties can
arise. This includes complications like aggravations, accessory symptoms
and new symptoms, etc. If, and when this happens, the combination method
offers no clues at to what is causing what and leads to confusion and
difficulties in case management. The method of alternating or using a
sequence of single remedies does not suffer from this problem as each
remedy may be observed individually.
This method also reduces the chances of giving unneeded medicines and
too many doses because you can follow your case more closely. One can also
just stop with remedy number 1, 2 or 3 remedy if their is a striking
improvement or a complication or one can continue with all of them if its
seems necessary. If 1, 2 or 3 causes an aggravation or new symptoms we can
make adjustments immediately. If either 1, 2, or 3 causes trouble we don't
use it again. If 1, 2, and 3 works smoothly, wonderful! In this method one
has the ability of observe and choices that are lost in polypharmacy.
Classical Homoeopathy is often associated with the near exclusive use of
the constitutional remedy. Some very "classical" prescribers even profess
the one grand constitutional remedy for all situations acute or chronic
forever. Is this really classical? If one investigates homoeopathic history
closely one will find that this is a modern method that developed in the
1970s! It is "modern-classical homeopathy" (a oxymoron). My definition of
"Classical Homoeopathy" is practice that is based on the true "classics",
which includes the Hahnemann's Organon, Chronic Diseases, Lesser Writings
and the methods found in Samuel's casebooks. It also includes innovations
in harmony with the grand principles introduced by the Founder by great
homeopaths like Boenninghausen, Hering, Jahr, Lippe, Kent, Boger, etc. To
me this is the really "classical" in the true sense of the word.
What did the Founder really do? Hahnemann used single remedies,
alternations, tandem remedies, acute intercurrents, acute and chronic
intercurrents as well as a sequences and a series of remedies if and when
necessary. He used the single dose as well as divided doses by olfaction
and the medicinal solution. All of these are applications of one single
remedy at a time, but it includes a number of potential strategies that
involve more than 1 remedy if necessary. One would think that using
Hahnemann's works as a definition of what constitutes Classical Homoeopathy
would to the most limited, but in truth, it offers the widest variety of
methods and is most liberal and broad in its outlook. Hahnemann also
embraced psychology, magnetism, message, hydrotherapy and Mesmerism in the
Organon. It is this pseudo-classical modern Homoeopathy that is putting all
the limits on practice and calling every other healing art suppression!
Those who follow Hahnemann's methods are sometimes called names as if
we are religious fanatics, etc. In truth, if we truly follow in Hahnemann's
footstep the path is wide and the door is open to all sorts of experiments
within reason. What should not be forgotten are the cardinal principles
that make Homeopathy a safe and effective system. These are similars cure
similars, giving one single remedy at a time, using the minimum dose, and
the dynamic remedy. Similars prevents suppression and opens the door to
cure. Giving one single remedy at a time prevents the confusion and
complications associated with polypharmcy. The minimum dose prevents over
medication. The dynamic remedy prevents toxicity and opens the materia
medica to all of Nature's bounty be that benign substances or poisons.
There are also many checks and balances within these principles. For
example using a small doses balances the use of higher potencies, etc.
Hahnemann introduced these ideas together.
My advice is to learn traditional Homoeopathy very well and study the
foundation carefully. On this basis one is able to grow in the proper
manner from the ground up. There are many so-called experienced
practitioner, even teachers, who have never really read the Organon let
alone digest it! I would send them right back to school to start over! Too
many are jumping into all sorts of new methods without even understanding
the true classics. This includes the avantgarde methods like Sankaran's as
well as giving psorinum to just about everyone! There are teachers going
around professing the vital sensation, essences and flow charts that are
saying one doesn't have to learn the classical methods first because these
are the so-called "highest methods". I believe this is great mistake that
leads to folly in many cases.
So many of these persons don't understand what they are doing! Many
don't even know proper posology or case management and some don't even
understand remedy reactions. These methods cause too many aggravations
because of this. I get letters all the time. One hears ideas like "if the
patient says *I feel* it means it is an emotional case so one has to give
the 200c because nothing else will work!" What about the personal
sensitivity and the state of the vital force of the patient? What about
Hahnemann's idea that sensitivity varies on a scale of 1 to 1000? They
never even thought of that??? They are teaching the "no pain - no gain
method" and telling persons to "grin and bear it" when Hahnemann taught the
gentle, rapid and permanent cure. This is simple not necessary nor right.
Some say they are doing the "highest methods" yet they don't even
understand the basics of our art.
Some are using experimental methods without ever really using the full
potential of what is in the true classics waiting to be brought up to date.
The want to improve what they haven't learned in the first place! As of yet
I don't believe some understand that there is a "method to the madness"
witnessed in traditional Homoeopathy. They throw away the careful checks
and balances integrated into Homoeopathy over the last 197 years and act as
if they can do no wrong. Sometimes, I am called names and accused of all
sorts of nasty things just because I teach the classics as the foundation
and suggest bringing these methods up to date for our times. Then on this
strong foundation one can put the new methods into perspective and separate
the wheat from the chaff. We may even be able to truly take Homoeopathy
into the next century and really make it the medicine of the future.
Nevertheless, if one doesn't know where it all comes from they don't really
know where they going.
I do tired at the double standard that says the unorthodox
practitioners can say anything they wish but classical Homoeopaths can not
respond with a counterpoint. If they do they are equated with religious
fanatics, etc. My 30 years of clinical experience means nothing, right? I
am just crazy, right? To me Homoeopathy is a science that is based on
experience. We have a hypothesis - similars cure similars. Then we make a
prediction - apply similars in the right manner and it they will heal. Then
we set up a experiment - give similars in the minimum dose of single
potentized remedy. Then we look at the results. The outcome is CURE if this
is done properly. I have seen this 10,000s times. Telling me it doesn't
work is a waste of time.
I am open to using as many remedies, doses and potencies as needed.
Nevertheless, over the years I am using less and less remedies and fewer
doses and doing more and more good with both the C and LM potency. It is
obvious to me that the less I understand the case the more remedies and
doses I give. This does not mean I subscribed to club that believes in the
one grand constitutional remedy, etc. It means I have learned to see that
the Similia Minimus is a very important guiding light. I am learning that
in Homeopathy that "Less is More". This is an very important lesson that is
often overlooked by those who have not yet really learned how to think like
a homoeopath.
Anyway, I have taken time out this Ester Sunday to share my thoughts on
a few subjects with one and all. I hope they are appreciated in the light
they are truly offered. I am only calling for better education not
regulation and pointing out certain safety issues. My dear Ellen, thanks
for being the vehicle of the post but little if any of this is directed
personally at you.
May the Peace that transcends all understanding come to all!
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000
Hello Ellen et al,
May I say a few things for the sake of discussion? I am not here to
judge harshly nor am I a grand authority. I am just a old homoeopath. I
just want to open up the field of awareness if possible. This is not
directed at Ellen as I am only offering some general ideas. First of all, I
am glad what Ellen did worked!!! The question is how did it work? Another
question is - what if it did not work and what if there was an aggravation
or new complications? Some of the reasons Hahnemann spoke against
polypharmacy is that one can not tell what remedy might be helping, what
remedy might be aggravating, nor exactly how all the remedies are acting
together on the patient. It makes it very difficult to tell what is going
one especially when things are not working well and there are
complications. So in the homoeopathic system one is always thinking of the
worst case scenarios not the best possible outcomes. This is why Hahnemann
integrated a system of check and balances into his methods so that we would
have a method that is flexible, safe and effective.
For this reason, in traditional homeopathy one may have first given the
1. Arnica, then perhaps the 2. Calendula, and then perhaps 3. Hypericum in
a sequence if needed. It was not uncommon for Boenninghausen to make up
prescriptions in diseases like croup or quinsy that involved a sequence of
remedies like 1. Aconite; 2. Hepar; 3. Spongia, one dose every so many
hours, etc. This trio could be rotated if necessary i.e. 1, 2, 3 1. If
number 1 Aconite worked the patient was not to take 2 and 3, etc. The Baron
claimed this method worked extremely well and "Boenninghausen's Croup
Powders" became very popular. I share these ideas with those who use
combinations because it provides them with a bridge to traditional
Homoeopathy. I ask them to test the methods. Most of the time they find
well chosen single remedies in alternation or sequences works better than
the "shot gun approach". They also find it is easier to follow the case and
find complementary remedies, etc. Then slowly they start to use less rather
than more remedies.
Now perhaps one could just mix Aconite, Hepar and Spongia all together
and just give them to everyone but then we loose one important thing. That
is knowledge. This knowledge may not be important if the mix just works but
we all know that this is not a perfect world and many difficulties can
arise. This includes complications like aggravations, accessory symptoms
and new symptoms, etc. If, and when this happens, the combination method
offers no clues at to what is causing what and leads to confusion and
difficulties in case management. The method of alternating or using a
sequence of single remedies does not suffer from this problem as each
remedy may be observed individually.
This method also reduces the chances of giving unneeded medicines and
too many doses because you can follow your case more closely. One can also
just stop with remedy number 1, 2 or 3 remedy if their is a striking
improvement or a complication or one can continue with all of them if its
seems necessary. If 1, 2 or 3 causes an aggravation or new symptoms we can
make adjustments immediately. If either 1, 2, or 3 causes trouble we don't
use it again. If 1, 2, and 3 works smoothly, wonderful! In this method one
has the ability of observe and choices that are lost in polypharmacy.
Classical Homoeopathy is often associated with the near exclusive use of
the constitutional remedy. Some very "classical" prescribers even profess
the one grand constitutional remedy for all situations acute or chronic
forever. Is this really classical? If one investigates homoeopathic history
closely one will find that this is a modern method that developed in the
1970s! It is "modern-classical homeopathy" (a oxymoron). My definition of
"Classical Homoeopathy" is practice that is based on the true "classics",
which includes the Hahnemann's Organon, Chronic Diseases, Lesser Writings
and the methods found in Samuel's casebooks. It also includes innovations
in harmony with the grand principles introduced by the Founder by great
homeopaths like Boenninghausen, Hering, Jahr, Lippe, Kent, Boger, etc. To
me this is the really "classical" in the true sense of the word.
What did the Founder really do? Hahnemann used single remedies,
alternations, tandem remedies, acute intercurrents, acute and chronic
intercurrents as well as a sequences and a series of remedies if and when
necessary. He used the single dose as well as divided doses by olfaction
and the medicinal solution. All of these are applications of one single
remedy at a time, but it includes a number of potential strategies that
involve more than 1 remedy if necessary. One would think that using
Hahnemann's works as a definition of what constitutes Classical Homoeopathy
would to the most limited, but in truth, it offers the widest variety of
methods and is most liberal and broad in its outlook. Hahnemann also
embraced psychology, magnetism, message, hydrotherapy and Mesmerism in the
Organon. It is this pseudo-classical modern Homoeopathy that is putting all
the limits on practice and calling every other healing art suppression!
Those who follow Hahnemann's methods are sometimes called names as if
we are religious fanatics, etc. In truth, if we truly follow in Hahnemann's
footstep the path is wide and the door is open to all sorts of experiments
within reason. What should not be forgotten are the cardinal principles
that make Homeopathy a safe and effective system. These are similars cure
similars, giving one single remedy at a time, using the minimum dose, and
the dynamic remedy. Similars prevents suppression and opens the door to
cure. Giving one single remedy at a time prevents the confusion and
complications associated with polypharmcy. The minimum dose prevents over
medication. The dynamic remedy prevents toxicity and opens the materia
medica to all of Nature's bounty be that benign substances or poisons.
There are also many checks and balances within these principles. For
example using a small doses balances the use of higher potencies, etc.
Hahnemann introduced these ideas together.
My advice is to learn traditional Homoeopathy very well and study the
foundation carefully. On this basis one is able to grow in the proper
manner from the ground up. There are many so-called experienced
practitioner, even teachers, who have never really read the Organon let
alone digest it! I would send them right back to school to start over! Too
many are jumping into all sorts of new methods without even understanding
the true classics. This includes the avantgarde methods like Sankaran's as
well as giving psorinum to just about everyone! There are teachers going
around professing the vital sensation, essences and flow charts that are
saying one doesn't have to learn the classical methods first because these
are the so-called "highest methods". I believe this is great mistake that
leads to folly in many cases.
So many of these persons don't understand what they are doing! Many
don't even know proper posology or case management and some don't even
understand remedy reactions. These methods cause too many aggravations
because of this. I get letters all the time. One hears ideas like "if the
patient says *I feel* it means it is an emotional case so one has to give
the 200c because nothing else will work!" What about the personal
sensitivity and the state of the vital force of the patient? What about
Hahnemann's idea that sensitivity varies on a scale of 1 to 1000? They
never even thought of that??? They are teaching the "no pain - no gain
method" and telling persons to "grin and bear it" when Hahnemann taught the
gentle, rapid and permanent cure. This is simple not necessary nor right.
Some say they are doing the "highest methods" yet they don't even
understand the basics of our art.
Some are using experimental methods without ever really using the full
potential of what is in the true classics waiting to be brought up to date.
The want to improve what they haven't learned in the first place! As of yet
I don't believe some understand that there is a "method to the madness"
witnessed in traditional Homoeopathy. They throw away the careful checks
and balances integrated into Homoeopathy over the last 197 years and act as
if they can do no wrong. Sometimes, I am called names and accused of all
sorts of nasty things just because I teach the classics as the foundation
and suggest bringing these methods up to date for our times. Then on this
strong foundation one can put the new methods into perspective and separate
the wheat from the chaff. We may even be able to truly take Homoeopathy
into the next century and really make it the medicine of the future.
Nevertheless, if one doesn't know where it all comes from they don't really
know where they going.
I do tired at the double standard that says the unorthodox
practitioners can say anything they wish but classical Homoeopaths can not
respond with a counterpoint. If they do they are equated with religious
fanatics, etc. My 30 years of clinical experience means nothing, right? I
am just crazy, right? To me Homoeopathy is a science that is based on
experience. We have a hypothesis - similars cure similars. Then we make a
prediction - apply similars in the right manner and it they will heal. Then
we set up a experiment - give similars in the minimum dose of single
potentized remedy. Then we look at the results. The outcome is CURE if this
is done properly. I have seen this 10,000s times. Telling me it doesn't
work is a waste of time.
I am open to using as many remedies, doses and potencies as needed.
Nevertheless, over the years I am using less and less remedies and fewer
doses and doing more and more good with both the C and LM potency. It is
obvious to me that the less I understand the case the more remedies and
doses I give. This does not mean I subscribed to club that believes in the
one grand constitutional remedy, etc. It means I have learned to see that
the Similia Minimus is a very important guiding light. I am learning that
in Homeopathy that "Less is More". This is an very important lesson that is
often overlooked by those who have not yet really learned how to think like
a homoeopath.
Anyway, I have taken time out this Ester Sunday to share my thoughts on
a few subjects with one and all. I hope they are appreciated in the light
they are truly offered. I am only calling for better education not
regulation and pointing out certain safety issues. My dear Ellen, thanks
for being the vehicle of the post but little if any of this is directed
personally at you.
May the Peace that transcends all understanding come to all!
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000
Sounds a lot like my husband! Mine will take anything I give him,