Same disease in different species and related things...Aph 118 etc
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:53 am
I think this may be an interesting discussion - it involves what
happens when you have either same disease organism in different
species or different disease organisms and same species..... My
thoughts and experience here is triggered by Chris asking about URI
30C remedy regarding Aph 118 and likely takes an unexpected turn:
Firstly, Aph 118 says:
"Every medicine exhibits peculiar actions on the human frame, which
are not produced in exactly the same manner by any other medicinal
substance of a different kind.1
1 This fact was also perceived by the estimable A. v. Haller, who
says (Preface to his Hist. stirp. helv.): Latet immensa virium
diversitas in iis ipsis plantis, quarum facies externas dudum
novimus, animas quasi et quodcunque caelestius habent, nondum
perspeximus."
My opinion regarding 118 and URi 30C leads to the discussion that
follows:
I have not tried the URI 30C "on the human frame" but it clearly (as
in provings) produces *one* disease syndrome on the cat frame. This
to me makes it one medicine of one kind producing one disease for
cats (and I do not recommend it for humans), and in that way it is
different from other medicines of a different kind that produce
different diseases (as Hahnemann warns against in Aph 173).
Looking at Aph 118 above, URI 30C is unusual in this regard, as
its four disease causing components each produce the same symptoms
as the whole mix and it might be that Hahnemann just never happened
to observe such an unusual example as different organisms producing
the same symptoms in humans (nor do I know an example in humans). But
we see it more in animals, and Hahnemnan only claimed to apply his
EXAMPLES to people.
Had he had another 100 yrs or so of observation he might have seen
different examples in animals at least and he might have said
something..... who knows ... so I speak only for animals here which
is my area. In humans it may well be that every causative organism
produces only its own specific illness -at least so far.
But it just is not so in animals. In fact an odd thing is seen:
In animals the SAME organism will often produce DIFFERENT symptoms in
different species. But a few different organisms will often produce
the same symptoms in one species.
Examples:
A virus will sometimes "jump ship" to another species, either between
two animals or between an animal and human. There are lots of
examples. This has happened for feline Panleucopenia for example
which jumped to dogs as canine parvovirus. The same organism here has
different symptoms in cats and dogs. This nasty virus actually jumped
ship BACK to cats and causes symptoms in cats that resemble the
original panleucopenia in cats, only a lot more virulent and deadly,
but neither cat version resembles the disease in dogs at all. Now in
Homeopathy, we have to match the symptoms caused by the organism -
and they differ according to species.
What veterinary homeopaths are finding when using vaccine remedies is
that they work according to the organism and the disease it produces
and not according to species symptoms (which vary). In other words,
if the vaccine or the remedy made from it, produces a set of symptoms
in sheep and a different set of symptoms in cats, then the remedy
will work to prevent the sheep symptoms in sheep and the cat symptoms
in cats exactly according to the proving in each species. However if
you want to use the remedy in sheep which have symptoms cats would
get with the remedy - is it going to help sheep? According to
provings, no. In practice? Who knows? There is no Law of Similars to
induce us to try it?
There are many cases where this is relevant:
Bordetella bronchiseptica is another example. It can infect any
mammal species including man. Each species gets different symptoms
from it. In man it is "walking pneumonia", making the individual weak
while they may not know why. It also burns the lungs (destroying NO,
which can be helped wit high dose Alpha lipoic acid supplements in
ALL species as this lung alkali damage is common top all) . However
man does not seem to have the nerves to detect the burning sensation
in the lungs. Nor do sheep where it is a silent pneumonia till it
kills. Cats do feel the lungs burn after a month or so and will try
to cough out their sore lungs. [They look like they are hacking a
hairball but in the wrong body position and with no results]. Dogs
manage to keep the infection in the bronchial area, it does not get
deadly and go to the lungs. But they are irritated greatly from early
in the illness and in dogs it is less lethal and this is called
Kennel "Cough" for a reason.
Because the different species either perceive the SAME damage
from the SAME organism (which is genetically coded to do that
specific damage) differently, or because they resist its invasion
differently (eg dogs confining it to bronchii not lungs) - do we say
it is the same disease? Or do we say the symptoms differ thus by
homeopathy standards it is a different disease?
Aph 118 refers to human only, and does not answer that question.
The Blordetella bronchiseptica vaccine - used as a homeopathic
potentized remedy - will prevent the illness in any species as it
turns out - and when a proving is done - it produces the symptoms for
the relevant species in that species - cat ones in cats and sheep
ones in sheep etc.
This almost tosses a spanner in the works for our assumptions about
symptoms and remedies. We currently assume that if we prove the item
in humans the symptoms in animals will be the same. Yet the above and
other examples certainly prove that one remedy has DIFFERENT symptoms
in different species.
Is it then a huge asssumption that human-proved remedies apply to
other species?
What do we have to go on as vethoms?
My response is that in veterinary homeopathy we have to give clinical
cures HIGH precedence to verify any remedy in use - however well
proved it is (in humans). Vethoms have been doing this for
generations of vethoms of course. All of them know that one disease
is different in different species.
For example:
Cats are unable to eat most plants without being poisoned and can
digest none of them properly. (They lack the liver function by
design). Yet our plant remedies (in potency, so with toxicity diluted
out) seem to work just fine on cats. Each time this happens, it is a
cure added to the efficacy of that remedy in a new species.
We also can not use key symptoms of remedies is the same way in other
species as in humans - as there may be very different key symptoms if
only we had to provings to know it.
What holds true in practice and experience in vethom work, is that
human repertories ARE usable - but that it pays to pretend we do not
know the remedy pictures or key symptoms at all as that will bias
selection of a correct remedy away from it - where it really is the
right remedy.
I would like to see a central place where wethom cases arfe recorded
as there is enormlous knowledge to be gained from them. In the
meantime it is relevant to remember that rules for humans (even the
ones in the Organin) do not necessarily apply to animal work.
Animal work has some advantages to make up for this disadvantage: The
generation time in humans is mayeb 25 yrs, and the family production
per gestation is maybe 1 kid, maybe 2 or 3 per lifetime,
Compare with cats: Generation time of 1 year or less average 5
offspring per gestation, one per year for 10 years. This makes the
knowledge growth from CASES (of statistical significance) much easier
to obtain and much more significant in animal work.
It also makes the few remedies proven on various species (like
vaccinations) that much more "known" for the use of vethoms. This
species variation in response to the same substance, MAY require a
different approach in animal work with an emphasis on where there IS
good information, especially where case work can confirm a remedy for
a typical set of symptoms found in a particualr species.
I am NOT advocating we have separate veterinary repertories - just
the opposite. But I would like to stress the need to see things in
context (including veterinary context where appropriate) and to use
what information we have currently available, to do the best for our
veterinary clients that we can.
I believe that changes of technique for example, are needed in
veterinary work (like the approach to repertorizing mentioned).
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."
happens when you have either same disease organism in different
species or different disease organisms and same species..... My
thoughts and experience here is triggered by Chris asking about URI
30C remedy regarding Aph 118 and likely takes an unexpected turn:
Firstly, Aph 118 says:
"Every medicine exhibits peculiar actions on the human frame, which
are not produced in exactly the same manner by any other medicinal
substance of a different kind.1
1 This fact was also perceived by the estimable A. v. Haller, who
says (Preface to his Hist. stirp. helv.): Latet immensa virium
diversitas in iis ipsis plantis, quarum facies externas dudum
novimus, animas quasi et quodcunque caelestius habent, nondum
perspeximus."
My opinion regarding 118 and URi 30C leads to the discussion that
follows:
I have not tried the URI 30C "on the human frame" but it clearly (as
in provings) produces *one* disease syndrome on the cat frame. This
to me makes it one medicine of one kind producing one disease for
cats (and I do not recommend it for humans), and in that way it is
different from other medicines of a different kind that produce
different diseases (as Hahnemann warns against in Aph 173).
Looking at Aph 118 above, URI 30C is unusual in this regard, as
its four disease causing components each produce the same symptoms
as the whole mix and it might be that Hahnemann just never happened
to observe such an unusual example as different organisms producing
the same symptoms in humans (nor do I know an example in humans). But
we see it more in animals, and Hahnemnan only claimed to apply his
EXAMPLES to people.
Had he had another 100 yrs or so of observation he might have seen
different examples in animals at least and he might have said
something..... who knows ... so I speak only for animals here which
is my area. In humans it may well be that every causative organism
produces only its own specific illness -at least so far.
But it just is not so in animals. In fact an odd thing is seen:
In animals the SAME organism will often produce DIFFERENT symptoms in
different species. But a few different organisms will often produce
the same symptoms in one species.
Examples:
A virus will sometimes "jump ship" to another species, either between
two animals or between an animal and human. There are lots of
examples. This has happened for feline Panleucopenia for example
which jumped to dogs as canine parvovirus. The same organism here has
different symptoms in cats and dogs. This nasty virus actually jumped
ship BACK to cats and causes symptoms in cats that resemble the
original panleucopenia in cats, only a lot more virulent and deadly,
but neither cat version resembles the disease in dogs at all. Now in
Homeopathy, we have to match the symptoms caused by the organism -
and they differ according to species.
What veterinary homeopaths are finding when using vaccine remedies is
that they work according to the organism and the disease it produces
and not according to species symptoms (which vary). In other words,
if the vaccine or the remedy made from it, produces a set of symptoms
in sheep and a different set of symptoms in cats, then the remedy
will work to prevent the sheep symptoms in sheep and the cat symptoms
in cats exactly according to the proving in each species. However if
you want to use the remedy in sheep which have symptoms cats would
get with the remedy - is it going to help sheep? According to
provings, no. In practice? Who knows? There is no Law of Similars to
induce us to try it?
There are many cases where this is relevant:
Bordetella bronchiseptica is another example. It can infect any
mammal species including man. Each species gets different symptoms
from it. In man it is "walking pneumonia", making the individual weak
while they may not know why. It also burns the lungs (destroying NO,
which can be helped wit high dose Alpha lipoic acid supplements in
ALL species as this lung alkali damage is common top all) . However
man does not seem to have the nerves to detect the burning sensation
in the lungs. Nor do sheep where it is a silent pneumonia till it
kills. Cats do feel the lungs burn after a month or so and will try
to cough out their sore lungs. [They look like they are hacking a
hairball but in the wrong body position and with no results]. Dogs
manage to keep the infection in the bronchial area, it does not get
deadly and go to the lungs. But they are irritated greatly from early
in the illness and in dogs it is less lethal and this is called
Kennel "Cough" for a reason.
Because the different species either perceive the SAME damage
from the SAME organism (which is genetically coded to do that
specific damage) differently, or because they resist its invasion
differently (eg dogs confining it to bronchii not lungs) - do we say
it is the same disease? Or do we say the symptoms differ thus by
homeopathy standards it is a different disease?
Aph 118 refers to human only, and does not answer that question.
The Blordetella bronchiseptica vaccine - used as a homeopathic
potentized remedy - will prevent the illness in any species as it
turns out - and when a proving is done - it produces the symptoms for
the relevant species in that species - cat ones in cats and sheep
ones in sheep etc.
This almost tosses a spanner in the works for our assumptions about
symptoms and remedies. We currently assume that if we prove the item
in humans the symptoms in animals will be the same. Yet the above and
other examples certainly prove that one remedy has DIFFERENT symptoms
in different species.
Is it then a huge asssumption that human-proved remedies apply to
other species?
What do we have to go on as vethoms?
My response is that in veterinary homeopathy we have to give clinical
cures HIGH precedence to verify any remedy in use - however well
proved it is (in humans). Vethoms have been doing this for
generations of vethoms of course. All of them know that one disease
is different in different species.
For example:
Cats are unable to eat most plants without being poisoned and can
digest none of them properly. (They lack the liver function by
design). Yet our plant remedies (in potency, so with toxicity diluted
out) seem to work just fine on cats. Each time this happens, it is a
cure added to the efficacy of that remedy in a new species.
We also can not use key symptoms of remedies is the same way in other
species as in humans - as there may be very different key symptoms if
only we had to provings to know it.
What holds true in practice and experience in vethom work, is that
human repertories ARE usable - but that it pays to pretend we do not
know the remedy pictures or key symptoms at all as that will bias
selection of a correct remedy away from it - where it really is the
right remedy.
I would like to see a central place where wethom cases arfe recorded
as there is enormlous knowledge to be gained from them. In the
meantime it is relevant to remember that rules for humans (even the
ones in the Organin) do not necessarily apply to animal work.
Animal work has some advantages to make up for this disadvantage: The
generation time in humans is mayeb 25 yrs, and the family production
per gestation is maybe 1 kid, maybe 2 or 3 per lifetime,
Compare with cats: Generation time of 1 year or less average 5
offspring per gestation, one per year for 10 years. This makes the
knowledge growth from CASES (of statistical significance) much easier
to obtain and much more significant in animal work.
It also makes the few remedies proven on various species (like
vaccinations) that much more "known" for the use of vethoms. This
species variation in response to the same substance, MAY require a
different approach in animal work with an emphasis on where there IS
good information, especially where case work can confirm a remedy for
a typical set of symptoms found in a particualr species.
I am NOT advocating we have separate veterinary repertories - just
the opposite. But I would like to stress the need to see things in
context (including veterinary context where appropriate) and to use
what information we have currently available, to do the best for our
veterinary clients that we can.
I believe that changes of technique for example, are needed in
veterinary work (like the approach to repertorizing mentioned).
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."