Minutus

Yep. Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't want to bother looking up
definitions.
I should have avoided it; wasn't anticipating problems like I no doubt
should have been!
A reasonable point.
I was assuming that eczema will *not* be genuinely solo--if nothing
else there will be family history to suggest "what may come" if
mishandled, or even if not treated.

I was also assuming that the trouble caused by suppression of eczema is
specifically *because* it is attached to "the full weight of psora (or
some other monster);" certainly that *is* the basis of our entire
Hahnemannian approach to eczema, and also to the proscriptions of
topical treatments. Which is why I am stunned to see Joy talking as
tho she thinks I was actually advocating cortisone instead of
treatment. Dunno what else to say about it...

Thanks, John, for putting that out!
Shannon

It really depends on the quality of the single sx - if it is SRP, a particular, a general etc - this is why we rank each and every sx throughout the case. I was only suggesting that a SRP sx can lead you to the simillimum quickly or quicker.

Blocks to case treatment also have to include making up your mind that each and every case comes with excess baggage, i.e. lots of emotional problems. This isn't the case always. the more you practice the more you see cases as being reasonably simple. But you can easily make them more difficult by getting too deep into emotional analysis that isn't warranted - physical and mental sx having a much 'cleaner' or factual presentation.

The PC is what needs to be cured and you work from there not assuming anything (another stumbling block).

I never said, Shannon that you advocated cortisone but that your answer regarding cortisone and my question was fickle - how easy you make myth Shannon.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

What does "fickle" mean in that context?
You're inventing things I never said nor implied.

If you are going to reply all the time with "I never said this" and "you are inventing" then you are obviously hampering any quality discussion, clear for all to see.

I never 'said' that you 'said' anything but I was giving instruction regarding a previous post of yours that suggested (are we allowed to use that word as this is what it seemed to me hence my questions for clarity purposes which you don't want to answer), that what you call 'local' sx for some reason do not = the whole case or what needs to be cured and that one always has to look further, that these' local' sx are not representative of what needs to be cured.

If you, sorry, if anyone! makes a case more difficult for themselves than it need be and this so often includes the emotional sphere because it is open to so much interpretation, then, then it is a waste of resources. On another discussion there is already a great deal of 'talk' about poor practices in case taking and so called essence prescribing - this is easy to do if you make a case bigger than what it is.

Shannon wrote:-
When the prescriber sees that the patient is exhibiting *any* active miasmatic state, one thing that tells them is that it is not a local or temporary sort of problem they're treating, and that the presenting complaint(s) will not represent the whole of "what is to be cured."

Past that, recognition of *which* the active miasm(s) is/are, helps to refine the choice of remedy, and may help give "heads up" about other possible issues, ailments, and likely progress of the case.
fickle can also mean flippant.

and to make things even clearer, my points about the single sx are in addition to John's comments.

Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Sorry Joy, but this isn't going anywhere...
If you feel anything I wrote was misleading, I do appreciate whatever
clarification you see fit. But I need to go back into the woodwork for
now.
Thanks,
Shannon