Hi John,
(For some
...
2008/5/5 Robert & Shannon Nelson :
I *think* your first part here is simply re-stating what I meant to
say, in noting that generally the "presenting picture" will be the most
effective way to go, since that will (when all goes well) treat the
*totality* of the patient's susceptibilities and their history. In
other words, simply proceeding the way that we usually do, without
*needing* to know specific causes. (For the most part.)
John replied:
No, I could have made that clearer. What I meant to convey is that the
patient's picture, even the changed picture, won't tell you that it's
arsenic, as it will be too complicated by the various forms of arsenic
and in many cases by toxicity from other metals and who knows what
else.
Shannon:
I understand, and part of my point was that it doesn't necessarily
*matter* what the presumed cause was, so long as we can see a solid
"presenting picture" remedy prescription. In *most* cases the "cause"
would be only partly about the toxin or trauma or whatever, and the
rest of the "cause" would have to do with a complicated combination of
inherent susceptibility and other history.
Sometimes (I was taught--I do not have any experience treating specific
toxicity) the presenting picture will reflect that of the toxin, and
other times (I was taught) it will not. If there is a clear presenting
picture, why would you *not* go there first? (puzzled...)
John:
And it will not be a strong basis either for prescribing an antidote,
for the same reasons.
Shannon:
You're taking an "allopathic", "parts-based" approach to the problem...
Which, as you noted in your last post, is different from the
homeopathic one. "Treat the (name of the) disease (presumed cause),"
rather than "treat the patient."
John:
One could always try, of course. But essentially, in looking even at
one compound of arsenic and one compound of mercury simultaneously
supervening on a patient, even one in perfect health beforehand, you're
looking at a complex of disease, not easy to deal with.
Shannon:
Yes! Organisms are extraordinarily complicated!
And any such situation is even more complicated than what you're
mentioning--don't forget the preexisting vulnerabilities, plus effects
of prior diet and other exposures and other physical and medical
history, *plus* effects of whatever emotional events may have played a
part too.
John
Sorting the changes -- particularly generals -- from preexisting
symptoms in a patient without language is a tough call,
Shannon:
I'm still puzzled about what you're getting at...
Sure absence of language necessitates a different approach, and can
make prescribing more difficult... And yet people do it! Prescribing
for animals, babies, unconscious people. Some generals don't need
language to express them, but in any case, if one is treating a recent
event--recent, specific toxicity, for instance--then recent, specific
changes are part of what you need.
John:
and even real homoeopaths (those who are used to prescribing on the
basis of symptoms rather than on fads)
Shannon:
Oooh, ouch. What "fad" are you referring to? "Presenting picture"
(or, as you say, "symptoms") isn't what I'd call a "fad". For that
matter neither is isopathy, or drainage. You've lost me!
John:
will have a tough time sorting out a remedy based on the symptoms.
That's why I suggest that mostly these cases will instead be solved by
primary reference to the metals involved,
Shannon:
What do you mean by that? Give me an example?
John:
with some secondary reference to symptoms: not homoeopathy, but a
valid, useful approach for all that.
Shannon:
Okay... I agree that homeopathy is not the only way to solve one of
these problems. But (mystified) I've certainly understood that it is
*a* way to solve them. I'm baffled...
John:
(Shannon had written:) But what do you mean by "without a knowledge of
the symptoms to expect of the toxicity itself, it seems to me that no
clearer prescribing indications are likely to appear than a number of
such gross
pathologies."? John replied: This is a reference to the previous
three sentences: no symptom picture is predictable in such a situation.
Shannon:
Or, to put it another way, "any remedy may be required"--you need to
take the case.
(Shannon had previously written)
Surely the clear prescribing indications would simply
be the overall *case*? We usually don't *have* "gross pathologies" to
go on, and usually by the time the case has proceeded that far it's
become *harder* to solve, not easier...??
John's reply:
Yes, it has, and I didn't mean to suggest waiting! But you've
suggested that the "overall case" is not going to be terribly helpful
here if it means all of the patient's prior symptoms -- a position I
agree with, particularly in the early stages of the poisoning.
Shannon:
I did not say that the "overall case" is not going to be helpful here!
I said the opposite. I said that (so far as I was taught) the overall
case *is* the thing to prescribe on. I can't push my argument very
hard, as I have no clinical experience to back it up, but I may as well
clarify what I was trying to say. I would think (on basis of what I
was taught) that if you catch the matter in an early stage (by which I
assume you mean when you know there has been a toxic exposure but there
are not yet any symptoms of it??) then giving the patient's chronic
remedy would be the way to start. In that way you are balancing a
supporting the person's physiology so that *it* can do its best job of
managing the toxic exposure. If that's not sufficient, then symptoms
will appear, and we'd continue from there.
John:
What I'm additionally suggesting is that the recent changes will
reflect toxicity by a number of arsenic compounds simultaneously as
well, in half of these cases, as by a number of mercury compounds. As
such, I don't think that the changes are going to be useful in finding
a single antidote to every toxin involved.
Shannon:
This is the same idea, but in condensed time-frame, as the observation
that, in treating any ol' run-of-the-mill case, it becomes very
complicated to treat every trauma, every individual weakness, every
organ, every toxicity and every deficiency and reason therefor. But
part of the basis of homeopathy is the idea that each (person or other
patient) is a *whole*, and the whole reflects the parts, and when you
re-balance the most central levels, that permits the others to right
themselves too.
"constitutional" treatment (by which I simply mean ongoing process of
treatment through presenting pictures in combination with miasmatic and
causation-based and etc. prescribing) of "side-benefits."
John:
What is vital is to get each compound out of the body, and one single
antidote is unlikely to trigger all that at once.
Shannon:
But a well-placed overall remedy (chronic, "constitutional", etc.)--or
if needed a series of them--should permit the body to do the job.
And--
On May 3, 2008, at 10:05 PM, John Harvey wrote:
Good, because certainly *much* can be done using potentized medicines!!
Numerous studies have shown excretion of metals and toxins, following
administration of the remedy--possibly but not necessarily the
isopathic one.
the
Okay, but not necessarily needed information.
It's best--at least so I was taught--to simply take the case.
John replied:
Well, it's worth a try. If mercury isn't also involved, it might work.
Shannon:
?? You're saying that remedies cannot bring about excretion of
mercury? I've certainly heard differently. Can you explain?
John:
The classic arsenical poisoning is a simpler matter than this: it
generally involved arsenic trioxide or perhaps potassium arsenate or
some other single salt, and required a single antidote to help the body
expel a single poison.
Shannon:
In this and some of the following, I'm not quite sure where you're
going...
Surely the response we expect to see from a remedy depends in part upon
our basis for choosing it; if it's chosen on a limited basis, e.g. as
an isopathic approach, and not matching the broader case, then we won't
expect a broader or deeper action, beyond helping to turn things back
to where they were before the toxicity.
But if I feel that the indicated remedy is more broadly and deeply
indicated, then I might indeed be expecting to see effects on
"preexisting tendencies and tomorrow's upset." Why would I confuse the
case by trying to do that? It depends on what you *see* as the
presenting picture, and the uppermost symptoms.
John:
The point is to treat one genuine illness (i.e. miasm or toxin) at a
time with treatment gentle enough not to kill the patient. Re-release
of any of these compounds into the bloodstream is a serious business.
Simultaneous re-release of all of them and placing the organism under
the burden of additional healing seems unnecessarily risky.
Shannon:
This is too difficult to argue on a theoretical basis!
I thought we were talking about a recent, acute exposure? In the case
surely the compounds are *already* in the bloodstream??? I guess I
can't reply to this, in the abstract...
John, or Luise?:
?? *I* would be!
John:
Then I've failed to make my point, which is that attempting to remove
the symptoms in such a case is not enough. The body must be assisted
to remove the arsenic (and mercury).
Shannon:
I do understand that palliative treatment can remove symptoms of a
problem, without removing the problem. I've heard same possibility
said of e.g. parasite or yeast infestations, and seems reasonable that
it could apply to a metal toxicity.
bring out excretion of toxins and metals.
being palliative or curative--when the remedy wears off, are there
signs that the patient's overall state is improved, or are they
relapsing to a state that is at least as bad as before? I guess you're
saying this is what you'd expect to see if e.g. arsenic-mercury
poisoning is treated only with "the indicated remedy(s)", without also
doing something specific to remove the metals. I have nothing other
than "theory" and "what I was taught" to address that with; but would
love to hear from others who have clinical experience treating that
sort of toxicity.
John:
the
Shannon:
The "traditional" homeopathic view (at least the one I was taught) is
that appropriate homeopathic treatment enables the body to eject them.
You're saying that's not so--all we have at this point are "dueling
theories"!
symptoms
John, I think there may be more than one way of skinning this
particular kitty.
What I was taught, is that if you see a clear chronic remedy picture,
you might very reasonably (and might very successfully) give that
chronic remedy to deal with other "situations"--illness, injury, etc.
(I'm not talking about the "one remedy per lifetime" or "one remedy for
everything that comes up" approach.)
If I "know" someone has been exposed to a toxin, but on taking the case
I (think that I) see simply an intensification of their preexisting
chronic state, then I would most definitely give their regular chronic
remedy.
If I see a symptom picture relating directly to the presumed toxic
exposure, then I would give that one instead.
I would (personally) only give an isopathic remedy--which I *think* is
what you're referring to above???--if the broader remedy is not clear,
or not successful. But, that's just the way I was taught. I realize
one could make a case for beginning with the isopathic (or
"drainage"??) etc.; but it's certainly not *necessary* to begin that
way.
John:
The approach you're describing would evidently be suitable for complex
disease not involving a number of cumulative poisons. I don't know of
any work that's been done to show it effective in the safe removal of
heavy metals in multiple forms, but I'd be interested and pleased to
hear that it has been done.
Shannon:
Just from a theoretical basis, surely *most* cases of chronic disease
also involve "a number of cumulative poisons"--presumably mostly at a
sub-clinical level--as well as a number of excesses and deficiencies,
and these are evened out thru the homeopathic treatment. The body
rights itself...
John:
It would be real homoeopathy; but it would also be challenging. The
more straightforward antidotal approach gives results that are
indisputably good ones.
Shannon:
But what *is* the "straightforward antidotal approach"?
John:
? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Are you saying it's more important when there is a specific recent
cause such as toxicity? Even in that case, I would disagree...
Sometimes you do need to know the cause, but thankfully that does not
seem to *usually* be the case, since we very often *don't* know
specific causes!
John:
In this case, the patient will never be well again until the bulk of
the arsenic and the bulk of the mercury have gone. For this reason,
the cause I'm referring to is otherwise known as an obstacle to cure.
We can't expect to simply "cure" symptoms of a cause that remains
intact.
Shannon:
Yeah, and remedies should be able to accomplish that...
But again, I'm only doing "dueling theories" at the moment.
corruption
(e.g.
Hm, I follow you on the part re corporate damage to our food supplies,
but what does that have to do with "the latest prescribing fads"?
John:
It's about being easily distracted from failure by empty promises of
easier methods. Rather than creating an excuse to cast around for
things to blame for the failure of "homoeopathic" practice, every
failure is an opportunity to knuckle down to the work of learning to
practise homoeopathy rigorously, on the basis of known pathogenesis and
known natural symptoms, both of which can be known only through
spending time on them.
Luise, I don't know where these ideas about using a patient's chronic
remedy for an acute illness arise,
Shannon:
Just FTR, some prescribers do this very successfully.
First, of course, there are the situations where the "acute" is
actually an "acute exacerbation of the chronic state", and the chronic
remedy (or one related) is what's *needed*. But even aside from that,
apparently the more deeply the remedy "fits", the broader its range of
usefulness will be. E.g. Mangialavore has published reams of cases
where the chronic remedy was the only one needed during years and years
of treatment--handling acutes, injuries, whatever. My own first
homeopath (Vithoulkas trained, "very classical") would often try the
"constitutional" (by which I mean chronic,
presenting-picture-plus-miasmatic-consideration-based) remedy first,
and very often it was all that was needed.
appropriate to try the "constitutional" (same definition as above)
first. Clearly this is an issue where approaches differ.
when you can, is that it brings about a deeper healing; you get more
healing "bang for your buck". Yes you could give an acute (or
whatever), and then when that's past, move back to the constitutional,
but often that extra step is simply not needed--I have seen.
John:
but they reflect an unfortunate confusion between individuality of
response and permanency of individual response. You and I may need
different remedies in the one epidemic of measles; those two remedies
are almost certainly not the two remedies we needed a fortnight
earlier.
Shannon:
But if a good, deep constitutional (per above) remedy is known for each
person, they might indeed be able to use their individual remedies even
for the measles or whatever.
more on the order of "layers" or "zig-zag" approach, and may not be
sufficient to deal with a strong acute etc.
John:
The matter of chronic poisoning is a little different, and I'd love to
know that prescribing as Shannon suggests worked, but the only cases of
successful antidotes to heavy-metal toxicity that I can summon to mind
have addressed that toxicity alone, just as we would address measles
alone in a patient rather than measles and chronic depression etc.
Shannon:
A strong acute disease would tend to displace chronic issues anyway...
Shannon
John:
As stated above, it also strikes me as safer to deal with one poison at
a time, due to its consequent flooding into the bloodstream.
Cheers!
John