Minutus

Hello Luise (and others)
This discussion has gone through some interesting twists and turns, and I have not followed every detail, but now that it has evolved into repping of specific symptoms I am a bit confused by your last email – even though I think we are in complete agreement. There seems to be two parts to evaluating remedy selection – the repping of the symptoms of the individual before you, and the evaluation and inclusion of accumulated knowledge about a condition or disease (pathology, pace, clinical experiences, etc.). You refer to repping a disease – which I take to mean a way of producing a list of remedies associated with a disease. I would place this into the category of evaluation of accumulated knowledge about a condition or disease – and use it to insure a good remedy was not omitted from consideration – but not to rep on equal terms to the individual case symptoms.
I’ve always had a question about the concept of ‘peculiar/strange’ in the practice situation. In terms of overview evaluation of multiple cases (i.e. academic situation) it is a clear and straight forward concept. However, on an individual level – you take the case before you and evaluate the specific symptoms of the individual before you. If you try to determine what is strange and peculiar during the interview, it is as if you have already ‘diagnosed’ and are comparing the individual to a standardized version of a specific condition or disease, looking for the odd bit that you consider strange and peculiar – but might very well be normal for that individual. Now reviewing the case notes after the fact, looking for strange and peculiar might be a different matter – but knowing ahead of time you will be scouring notes for such a thing – don’t you think that might affect the way a practitioner takes a case?
Donna
D C Rona, PhD, ND, DHM
________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Luise Kunkle
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:08 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Peculiar (srp)/characteristic symptoms.. was Perhaps this flu - suppression of inflammation
...and Hahnemann

Hi Irene, Ellen,

just riding my hobby horse or cetero censeo...

As far as peculiar symptoms by themselves go I just want to second (to
a degree - th part, that is outside this agreement is not relevant in
this connection) what Irene says below.

I just want to add something about Hahnemann's statements in this
respect.

He never said tho (almost) disregard that what is common to one
disease - he said to disregard the symptoms that are common to *almost
every disease* -- and he adds examples of what he means: which are
being tired, headache, feeling low.

Some homeopaths say instead to e.g. ignore swollen tonsils, sore
throat etc. in tonisllitis, since that is common to the *disease*.
This may be their opinion and their experience - this is one thing. It
is, however, NOT what H. said - or do you have sore throat, swollen
tonsils in *almost any* disease???

This is only true in cases where homeopaths include in their repping
the "name of the disease", in the above cited example:tonsillitis.
THEN hte remedies for those symptoms would appear in the repping twice
and thus upgrade them. Or, of course, where a homeopath reduces the
remdies to be considered to those given in "tonsillitis" - since in
those the common symptoms have alread been included in a
pre-selection.

In the case specifically discussed, i. e. Cushings: if there were a
rubric "Cushigs disease" the symptoms typical for it should probably
not be again included in the repping.

Regards

Luise

Hmm - now I am not sure I understand correctly what you are saying -
I'll try:-)
Yes

You

Yes

I would place this into the category
That I do not understand.

Repping is like looking up in a dictionary the words you do not know
when doing a translation. If you are good enough in both languages to
know the words without looking them up you do not need to. There is
that which you say above: often, when working on a translation where
exact meanings are important, I will do a lot of dictionary work
looking upt words I think I know - just to see whether they really hit
the mark, whether there may be better words to express the meaning of
the original text.

Just as in doing translation: without a good knowledge of the two
languages your translation is bound to be less-than-perfect - to say
the least;-) -, no matter how much dictionary work you do. Same with
repping etc. in homeopathy, of course.

But I guess this is not what you asked - on re-reading I guess you
mean the relative value I give to symptoms as such and disease?

Well, as a rule I personally do not consider the disease at all to
staart out with - not in chronic cases. It might be different if
someone came to me with a diagnosis of say measles or mumps or
tonsillitis. There I might limit myself to the remedies given in the
rubrics - unless something jumped at me that is srp in the sense
Hahnemannian described. I remember once curing a case of "tonsillitis"
- looked awful. I happened to say - oh that must be painful. The
patient replied "no, it does hurt at all". I cured it with Stram. on
this srp sx. It so happens that Stram is also in the list of remedies
for tonsillitis - but I gave it since the only other remedy that also
has this symptom to any relevance is Opium,, and Opium I did not have.

To extend this to extreme: If a patient told me: ever since I have had
this terrible headache/backache/stomach ache, diarrhea... I am sooo
happy - I would throw out all the symptoms of these states and
concentrate on just this one:-)

Yes - one should never do that. Only if it happens to jump at you and
knock you over the head as described above, this is permissible (or so
I think)
ot necessarily. One can guard against that by devising the method of
case-taking accordingly - and being aware of this danger.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Dear Donna,

Someone gave me a wonderful post that I can't locate. Among the
chracteristics of SRPs were:

Pertaining to modality, location, sensation, extension, or sequence of symptoms:

Contrary to nature,
Paradoxical (Ignatia type sore throat but better swallowing),
Vicarious meaning xx instead of yy symptom,
Periodic,
Concommittant.

Hope someone has the original post.

Best,
Ellen

Relating to another comment about difficulty selecting SRP symptoms,
disease is a non-homeopathic way of thinking. For non-physical
example, behavior that is normal given the circumstances (sadness
after death of a loved one) doesn't count in repping and neither does
a symptom that is normal given the circumstance. That pushes us to
look for what is not normal given the disease symptom. Knowing a
disease or syndrom in an allopathic way is still helpful because you
can guess that obesity is normal for Cushings. Hahnemann would (or
didn't I'm not sure which) not have had Cushings as a rubric option.
Since we do, we are not going to use the typical symptoms of that
modern disease category. I think that is what you are saying Luise.

Are you sure that he meant that such rubrics shoud not be used in such
as literal sense? Typically such giant rubrics they might be used
as elimination symptoms.

The modern reason for not using something like sore throat, or
headache is the rubric is too big. The symptom is not specific
enough. Of course if you can find a SRP that is better. But that
trump card does not alway come.

Some homeopaths believe that if you have stronger rubrics (mentals,
miasm, strong generalitities...), then you should use those. If a
remedy appears that strongly that does not include the disease
location, they ignore that.

This makes sense from Boenninghausen's method. (I am jumping on a
limb that where I am not sure of my weight or the strenth of the limb)
That is, if you have a general symtom such as inflamation, it does not
matter that your case has for example heart inflammation but your
remedy does not have it. If you remedy has inflammation of the same
type as the patient's, then location is a weak consideration. The
remedy must have the same modalities regardless of the location. If
the remedy has those modalities of inflammation in many locations,
that's enough. I have not seen this reasoning, but I have seen
homeopaths due to trust in their own system of analysis ignoring for
example location (eg., Sankaran).

What do you think?

Best,
Ellen

Hi Ellen,

Had a lovely list like that years ago. Sorry I don’t have it any more or I’d send it along to you. Perhaps someone else on the list has one.
Donna
________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ellen Madono
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 6:37 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Peculiar (srp)/characteristic symptoms
Dear Donna,

Someone gave me a wonderful post that I can't locate. Among the
chracteristics of SRPs were:

Pertaining to modality, location, sensation, extension, or sequence of symptoms:

Contrary to nature,
Paradoxical (Ignatia type sore throat but better swallowing),
Vicarious meaning xx instead of yy symptom,
Periodic,
Concommittant.

Hope someone has the original post.

Best,
Ellen

Hi Ellen,

Is this what you are referring to ?

*Striking, Extraordinary, Unusual, Oddly Characteristic (SEUO)*

In Barthel's Characteristics of Homeopathic Materia Medica we find a brief

summary of the twelve ways in which the "strange, rare, and peculiar"
symptom may be understood. All the examples are from the remedy Phosphorus.

1. The symptom is peculiar in itself: "long narrow stool."

2. The symptom is peculiar through the modality: "mania for work before
menses."

3. The symptom is peculiar through its localization: "cold knees at night."

4. The symptom is peculiar through sensations: "anus feels open."

5. The symptom is peculiar through extension: "coryza extends to the
chest."

6. The symptom is peculiar through beginning, progression, and end: "pain

increases and decreases with the sun."

7. The symptom is peculiar through contrary symptoms: "lack of vital heat,

but heat aggravates."

8. The symptom is peculiar through its periodicity: "headaches every
7th day."

9. The symptom is peculiar through alternating symptoms: "weeping

alternating with laughter."

10. The symptom is peculiar through sequences: "bloody vomiting following

suppressed menses."

11. The symptom is peculiar through vicarious symptoms: "vicarious
epistaxis."

12. The symptom is peculiar through the absence of expected symptom:

"increased sexual desire without erections."

Lynn
-----------------------
Ellen Madono wrote:
--
Imagine Peace

Yes,
This is it Lynn. I think you sent it in the first place. I am going
to make a copy.
Thank-you,
Ellen

Oh goodness, that means:

If someone's heart stops and they are busy dying we need not rep that
as dying is normal when the heart stops.
So next case:
Bad cut is bleeding badly.
That too is normal "in the cirumstances" so we should not do
anything with it.
next case:
Widow spider bite causes great pain and toxicity, But that is normal
so we should ignore it.

????
Eh?????

I thought homeopathy was there to HELP the problem not to "ignore
it if it fits the circumstances".

If someone is grieving after the death of a loved one, then for
goodness sake we need to rep the sadness and give then Ignatia or
whatever to HELP them process the grief. Leaving out Grief as a
rubric leaves out ALL the right remedies, when it could INCLUDE all
the right remedies.
A peculiar issue can decide WHICH to use - but we still need the
grief list as a starting place.
No but he'd have had obesity - and he'd have used obesity.
Preferably obesity without immoderate eating (if that exists)
Plus weakness.
etc.
I agree.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Ellen,
I think this is a linguistic problem - since in English "disease" is
conceptually in most minds tied up with "name of disease" or whatever.
I have argued this before. It is in a way wrong translation of what
Hahnemann said - making problems where actually none exist. I
therefore do not use the word when I do translation.

Hahnemann's German word is "Krankheit", wich is exactly expressed by
"illness". Using this translation: of course illness is not a
non-homeopathic way of thinking, This is what hom. is all about -
curing illness, states of illness. Illness is a disturbed life force,
this makes itself known by symptoms, we cure it by being led by the
symptoms - whichever way. This is the core of it, isn't it?

The allopathic concepts of illness/disease are alltogether
different now than those at H's time, at the time of the old
homeopaths. Whether the modeern ones are better suited to homeopathic
thinking is a matter of opinion.

For non-physical

This is oly partly true. If this sadness is the reason the patient
comes for treatment, this is probably true. If it is part of the
concomitants, it should be taken into account, since the state of the
vital force is definitely also influenced by this sadness and the
reason for it.

That pushes us to

If we use the rubric "Cushings" you are right - since the obesity has
already been taking into account when the author of the rep or the MM
collected remedies for this rubric. Thus we would be using the same
symptom twice if we did use it.

If we do not use the rubric, of course we would include it as very
important - it is a very, very characteristic symptom of the state of
the life force. It also is not part of almost any disease - on the
contrary"

I think that is what you are saying Luise.
See above.
This probably was the reason for H. also. To push it to extreme: what
good is a symptom that occurs in all remedies?

As far as sore throat goes: There are only about 8 - 10 remedies that
have sore throat as a characteristic symptom. In moste cases of sore
throat one of those will be the simillimum.

The symptom is not specific

In most cases of sore throat you find the specifics in those remedies.

And SOMETIMES are successful. Those are the cases that are presented
in the literature, the seminars, perhaps by teachers of the colleges -
where the above are trying to demonstrate that this is the proper
method.
Where one should remember that this is mostly Boger's method, i. e.
how Boger "interpreted" what v. B. had written in his publications.
This, of course, makes it no less valuable - why should not Boger have
developed a very useful method?:-)

(I am jumping on a

This to me makes a lot of sense - if, of course, you also take into
consideration that the heart should come into it somehow. Which it
would do using the totility of the symptoms of the case. E. g. in an
inflammation of the heart there would probably be palpitations and/or
feeling or stricture and/or dyspnea and/or edema. In other words:
there would be a combination of symptoms that one can use regardless
of whether one knows that they mean inflammation of the heart (which
at H's and v B's times they would not have been able to diagnose). The
problem is: If we know by modern diagnostics that this is an
inflammation of the heart, should we ignore on the base of that
inflammation the a.m. symptoms. I think definitely not.

I have not seen this reasoning, but I have seen
Well, Sankaran's methods (he seems to have quite a lot of different
ones depending on the time he wrote a certain book/gave his lectures
on the loop etc) are different. So are Sehgal's.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Hi Irene,

I have a very anxious patient sitting here, or constantly calling me.
Hypchondria. I don't necessarily rep every supposed disease she hands
me. Even with diseases, you have to pick and choose and you might not
rep what the patient is complaining about. But in general, you are
right. Especially when the chief complain is the true cause for the
suffering. Would that all cases were like that. You deal with cats.
Are they as tricky as humans in this field of trying to psych the
homeopath?

Best,
Ellen

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Irene de
Villiers wrote: