Hahnemann's mode of practice in the 'last times'.

[Mary-anne Black]

Hello Andrew et al,
The statement that Hahemann gave two remedies simultaneously, appears to
have no foundation according to a letter from Dr. Croserio to Boenninghausen
(See Boenninghausen's lesser writings). The letter is a reply to
Boenninghausen's questions regarding how Hahnemann practised in the "last
times".
Some quotes from the letter:

"In order to be quite sure as to the matter, I applied to those homoeopaths
in Paris, who were most intimate with Hahnemann, visited him almost daily,
and, in consequence, were best informed as to his practice during the last
times, namely to Dr. Croserio, from whom I had before had a very freindly
communication, and could therefore also feel sure that he would give me as
detailed an account as possible............

In point number 7, Dr. Croserio clearly answers whether H. gave more than
one remedy at a time:

" 7. He never prescribed two different remedies, to be used in alternation
or one after the other, he always wanted to see first the effect of the one
remedy, before he gave another, and this even with patients who he treated
at a distance of two or three hundred miles. Nor would he change. Even in
acute diseases it was a rare case to see him allow the patient to take more
than one spoonful in 24 hours.
8. In order to pacify the patients or their relatives he frequently allowed
them to take simple sugar of milk.......

A treasure chest of book that I would highly recommend reading!!

Namaste,
Mary-anne Black

[Sara Klein Ridgley PhD]

Dear Mary-Anne,

Clearly, there were various reasons for promoting one view over the
other. To this date, it is being debated all over the Homeopathic 'world'.

So, what would you say to the following:

TWO CASES FROM HAHNEMANN's FINAL YEAR
(from The Dynamic Legacy)

Two examples from the year 1842 and communicated to Boenninghausen by
Hahnemann on 24 April, 1843, shortly before his death, are given here
(see LESSER WRITINGS, p. 773-776).

The evidence in the first case reveals that Hahnemann also used the
daily dosing method with the C-scale. It further reveals in both cases
the use of dual remedies.

In the first case, the patient is given Belladonna 60C (for
over-exposure to sun) on 12 September, 1842, dissolved in seven
tablespoons of water, one of these to be put in a glass of water and the
teaspoonful to be taken each morning for seven days. On 20 September,
she is to repeat the dose for another seven days. On the 28th she is
given Hyoscyamus 30C in the same manner as the Belladonna, for seven
days. This is followed by Sac Lac. Here we can see an obvious
overlapping (simultaneity) of action.

In the second case, we find the prescription of Belladonna 30C in the
seven tablespoon method on the 15th of January 1843. On the 18th, this
is switched to Merc-v "of the lowest new dynamization" (LM1), "to be
taken in the same way as Belladonna". On the 29th, this is changed to
Merc-v LM2. Since this was an acute case, that is, a case of an acute
flare-up of an underlying chronic situation ("frequently subject to sore
throat, as also now for a month past"), Hahnemann started with a remedy
for this flare-up and then commenced with the Sulphur (LM2) on 30th
January when the sore throat returned. At the end, Hahnemann also used
Nitric Acidum by smelling.

end quote.

Respectfully,
Sara
Mary-anne Black wrote:

[Dave Hartley]

Jeez, Sara-

You are quoting the single person in the world with the GREATEST AGENDA of
misinforming people about homeopathy in order to attempt to support his
egotistical "renewal" &/or "rediscovery" of "Hahnemanns true medical system"
(which this UPSTART "homeopath(???)" has actually adapted from Dr.
Elmiger's "Sequential Therapy")

Please review this person's entire history in homeopathy, and you'll see
this "timeline"..
(the accuracy of which will be known by long-term participants in
homeopathic circles, though it *distinctly* brings into question many of
this individual's claims.. *including* that in his "bio" which claims:
"... has been studying Hahnemann's medical system for more than two
decades"

I began studying homeopathy between 7 & 8yrs ago. Sometime in the 2nd yr., I
became aware of this individual's impetuous claims, and found that he had
written somewhere in that general time-period that he had been studying
homeopathy for FOUR years, had FAILED in applying its principles, and had
therefore been driven to seek out other approaches..
TO WIT:
1995 authors "Homeopathy Renewed" (more appropriately titled "Sequential
Therapy REHASHED")
http://www.minimum.com/reviews/thverren.htm

Recently, he has been fired from a directorship of a well respected
homeopathy school, for promoting his spurious doctrine to all students,
instead of (as agreed) reserving it as "food for thought" for graduate-level
students (who would have attained the discrimination to know better by
then, if they attended to class material)

Most recently, we see he is promoting himself as some sort of torch-bearer
for homeopathy (when in truth he's more of a self-promoting side-show
vent) -speaking in Czechoslovakia, where there may be no one who'll have
the background in homeopathy required to separate truth from this person's
rehashing of ST -now resplendant with window dressings including an
"intralinear" translation of Organon which he collaborated on, which
(SURPRISE, surprise is said to uphold his bizarre viewpoints.. but which,
in a stunning fit of intellectual dishonesty, has been WITHELD from public
purview!

In November of 1999, I was offered (along with others) the opportunity to
purchase the Decker/Verspoor "intralinear" translation for $50. I sent my
check immediately on recieving this offer! The check was reasonably quickly
returned to me, noting "the author's concerns over piracy" of his eText.

Let me ask you Sara...

You claim to have an advanced college degree. From that standpoint:

Do you believe that a person should be given ANY CREDENCE (even the slighest
shred!) when his arguments are based on HISTORICAL REVISION, and a
purposefully twisted RETRANSLATION which he COLLABORATED on, and which (I
have no doubt) he makes UNAVAILABLE for purchase or review?!

In any academic or scientific circles I am aware of, this individual would
not stand the SMALLEST CHANCE of being taken seriously(!)

..and he certainly ought not to be amongst homeopaths, until he can answer
some straightforward questions, such as where he has been involved in the
study of homeopathy for "over two decades" .. and when the Decker/Verspoor
"translation" (transliteration...) will be available to those such as
myself, who've been waiting 2 years to purchase.

I await your reply.
Most Sincerely,

Dave Hartley
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Santa Cruz, CA (831)423-4284

[Sue Muller]

Dear Dave,

Who are you talking about specifically? I have an idea it is Verspoor.
Couldn't this or similar apply to others in homeopathy, some of whom nobody
talks about in the same vein, probably because they're protected by a
medical qualification?

I made enquiries about a huge homeopathic seminar in Berlin once. I actually
paid for it with Visacard and then changed my mind (I reported my card lost
to be certain I wasn't charged; I had sent money for a subscription to
Vithoulkas' magazine once, having seen a copy, but received nothing).

The thing was I read up on a number of the speakers and found they had been
practising half the length of time I had and saw they were promoting
homeopathy in a spurious fashion. At first, being in Germany, I had thought
I was going to hear a team of sober and superexperienced
Hahnemannian/Boenninghausen homeopaths (a few were). What a faux-pas it
would have been for me, personally, to have travelled all the way to Germany
from NZ for such an event.

All just interesting gossip really.
Regards,
Sue

[Sara Klein Ridgley PhD]

Dave Hartley wrote:
Dave,

Apparently, you have some major problems with this person.

However, we were dealing with Hahnemann's use of dual remedies. Was the
quote from the Lesser Writings accurate or not? Does it matter where I
found the quote? (LESSER WRITINGS, p. 773-776)

As a clinical psychologist and a research scientist, I object to attacks
on persons, no matter what their credentials may or may not be. My
training and my own personality direct me to look at DATA and keep an
open and objective mind, and stay with the point until I understand it
fully. So, I will not discuss Mr. Verspoor's history or whatever you
think about him or others think about him. I will stay with the point,
and I will repeat it here:

"....Two examples from the year 1842 and communicated to Boenninghausen
by Hahnemann on 24 April, 1843, shortly before his death, are given here
(see LESSER WRITINGS, p. 773-776).

The evidence in the first case reveals that Hahnemann also used the
daily dosing method with the C-scale. It further reveals in both cases
the use of dual remedies.

In the first case, the patient is given Belladonna 60C (for
over-exposure to sun) on 12 September, 1842, dissolved in seven
tablespoons of water, one of these to be put in a glass of water and the
teaspoonful to be taken each morning for seven days. On 20 September,
she is to repeat the dose for another seven days. On the 28th she is
given Hyoscyamus 30C in the same manner as the Belladonna, for seven
days. This is followed by Sac Lac. Here we can see an obvious
overlapping (simultaneity) of action.

In the second case, we find the prescription of Belladonna 30C in the
seven tablespoon method on the 15th of January 1843. On the 18th, this
is switched to Merc-v "of the lowest new dynamization" (LM1), "to be
taken in the same way as Belladonna". On the 29th, this is changed to
Merc-v LM2. Since this was an acute case, that is, a case of an acute
flare-up of an underlying chronic situation ("frequently subject to sore
throat, as also now for a month past"), Hahnemann started with a remedy
for this flare-up and then commenced with the Sulphur (LM2) on 30th
January when the sore throat returned. At the end, Hahnemann also used
Nitric Acidum by smelling.

end quote.

Respectfully,
Sara

[Joy Lucas]

But Sara, this still isn't 2 remedies at one time. In acutes you can often
go through a selection of given remedies as the condition progresses, or the
wrong choice of remedy is made etc. There might only be hours or a couple of
days in between each remedy.

In chronic cases I have known Homeopaths give different remedies as they
take the case - each remedy dealing with appropriate aspects of the clients
diseased 'picture.'

The original point from andrew was that if more than one dis-similar disease
co-exists simultaneously then they both require different remedies
simultaneously.

Best wishes, Joy Lucas
Joy

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

[Farbod Rahnamai]

Dear Sara
I have not got the point yet. What is intresting in these cases for you and what new result did you get from them.
Best Regards
Farbod
"....Two examples from the year 1842 and communicated to Boenninghausen
by Hahnemann on 24 April, 1843, shortly before his death, are given here
(see LESSER WRITINGS, p. 773-776).

The evidence in the first case reveals that Hahnemann also used the
daily dosing method with the C-scale. It further reveals in both cases
the use of dual remedies.

In the first case, the patient is given Belladonna 60C (for
over-exposure to sun) on 12 September, 1842, dissolved in seven
tablespoons of water, one of these to be put in a glass of water and the
teaspoonful to be taken each morning for seven days. On 20 September,
she is to repeat the dose for another seven days. On the 28th she is
given Hyoscyamus 30C in the same manner as the Belladonna, for seven
days. This is followed by Sac Lac. Here we can see an obvious
overlapping (simultaneity) of action.

In the second case, we find the prescription of Belladonna 30C in the
seven tablespoon method on the 15th of January 1843. On the 18th, this
is switched to Merc-v "of the lowest new dynamization" (LM1), "to be
taken in the same way as Belladonna". On the 29th, this is changed to
Merc-v LM2. Since this was an acute case, that is, a case of an acute
flare-up of an underlying chronic situation ("frequently subject to sore
throat, as also now for a month past"), Hahnemann started with a remedy
for this flare-up and then commenced with the Sulphur (LM2) on 30th
January when the sore throat returned. At the end, Hahnemann also used
Nitric Acidum by smelling.
end quote.
Respectfully,
Sara
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Sara Klein Ridgley PhD]

Dear Farbod,

These cases were brought as part of the discussion started by Andrew,
regarding Hahnemann's use of several remedies at the same time.

I did not get any results, this is a theoretical philosophical discussion.

Yours

Sara

Farbod Rahnamai wrote:

[Farbod Rahnamai]

Dear Sara
I have followed the discussion from the beginning. I asked you the question because I can found no relation between those cases and dual remedy prescription . In Rima Hnadley's book ( IN SEARCH OF THE LATER HAHNEMANN ) you can find hep-s. and nux-v. prescreption alternately by HMN. But I think this one also is not an example for dual remedy prescription.
Best
Farbod
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Sara Klein Ridgley PhD]

Dear Joy, (And also Farbod...)

I fully agree with you. And maybe my example was not to the point, but
it carried more of a question with it than a statement, and I will
further ponder this. I also fully agree with Andrew's point, ie. the
crux of Aph. 42: the fact that first and foremost we need to understand
which diseases exist within the patient, and that there IS a possibility
of having dissimilar diseases at the same time, which WILL require
simultaneous administration of two or more different remedies at the
same time.

For whatever reason, there is an intense pressure in some homeopathic
circles to find the ONE and only remedy that covers ALL the symptoms,
without paying attention to the possibility of coexistence of different
diseases in the same patient. I would like to know what have others
done for such situations when it was clear that there was more than one
disease in a patient? It is often delegated to 'wrong choice of remedy'
or one is told to 'take the case again', instead of really admitting to
the fact that there are two or more different diseases going on. I see
this especially in such approaches to Homeopathy that insist that the
'constitutional remedy' will cure all conditions if correctly chosen....

Sara
Joy Lucas wrote: