Minutus

Dear Soroush,

Thank you for clarification. I read the article, it
really gives food for thought. Does Dr Shahrdar mean
that we should always concentrate first of all on what
caused the current state? Not taking into account the
arithmetical totality of symptoms of the case,
including pathological symptoms, but dealing with the
causality (etiology) first of all?
Using as an example my case of uterine fibroid, it is
a static pathological symptom which was caused by some
dynamic disturbance and we should not be hitting this
static pathological symptom (for example, with Aur Mur
Natr 3c), but we should go back and find what caused
it and targer that previous dynamic cause of the
present static pathology. Do I undertand it correctly?

Best regards, Michael

--- Finrod wrote:
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com

Dear Michael

I believe you have understood it correctly.

The gross numerical consideration of the symptoms does not get one very far.

It is the ranking of the symptoms - relating to the relevant totality of the
case - that will solve the case.
Always paramount should be What needs to be Cured?

If there is a cause to the problem, we need to deal with it.

Regards

Soroush