Minutus

I would like to come back to the original question that is quite
important IMO.

Similarity is defined by what a substance does. Identity by what the
substance is. Now let's elaborate...

A remedy is called a similar through its provings, meaning the influence
and the interaction it had with a living being. The more provers there
are, the more symptoms and signs emerge, the more possibilities of
similarity arise, the more the remedy becomes a polychrest....and so no
person can (fortunately) have all the symptoms and signs of its materia
medica as it is a collection arising from many origins. That is why we
use what is present in a patient and do not discard a remedy because the
patient does not have this or that characteristic.

The identical is supposed to be the substance that has caused the
pathology. It seems logical at first glance to use the cause of a
problem to remove said problem. And this works very well when you deal
with side effects of drugs, poisons, when you want to remove the
residues of a past encounter with a toxin, the residue being material or
energetic.
But it does not deal with the reaction of the body to that substance,
with the state of imbalance that has been created and now must be
restored. That state of imbalance can and often is completely different
from what a simple poisoning for example can create.

Or to take a more extreme example: if you fall and brake a bone, the
treatment will not be punching you in the face, even gently; you will
first of all have the fracture realigned anatomically, then use remedies
that will help the pain and enhance the healing. We have all done that.
But we might also need to deal with the emotional and/or psychological
impact of that fracture and what caused it....quite a difference if the
same bone is broken because of clumsiness or because somebody tried to
harm you and pushed you in the stairs! None of the physical repair
remedies will really deal with that deep impact, unless demonstrated
otherwise (e.g the mentals of Arnica....).

Makes sense?

Joe.

--
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

Just adding a comment to your statement, below, Joe.

I think the reason why so-called isopathic remedies help at times is because by their potentisation, they do shift to being able to produce 'similar' symptoms rather than the 'same'.

I recently had to triturate a hard substance to 3C and then potentise up through the centesimal scale (I've potentised liquids before but not something that had to be triturated). As I did it I became aware of how much contamination takes place of the original substance no matter how careful one is being. For example, particles from the porcelain mortar and pestle must enter and be included with the substance being ground in the lactose. On scaping down the sides of the mortar and pestle at each stage with a blade (as advised by Hahnemann) dark scratch marks appeared on the mortar from the stainless steel spoon I was using to do this. Obviously traces of the spoon were then entering the triturate as well. I should imagine that other contaminants were included as well - from the air, from how the mortar and pestle may have been previously washed, packaging material of the lactose and so on. These same types of contamination must have occurred in Hahnemann's time and in pharmacies today. So, by doing a trituration we must up with something that issimilar in potentised form but not the same. The same would be true with just potentising mother tinctures and solutes but possible to a lesser degree.

But, as you have stated, idems (that become similars through potentisaion) may lift off some of the damage caused by the initial impact of that substance but they never treat the susceptibility of the patient that allowed that degree of injury or damage to take place, or their individualised response to that injury.

fran.

Setting aside the contamination issue, why would potentisation modify a substance from same to similar if there is no interaction with a prover/patient?

Yes, I know, H said so, then what? isopathy/isotherapy is a different method entirely....

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

Sepia 12c the same as squid ink?
Is Nat-m whatever-potency the same as a similar amount of salt?
:-/

One explanation that made a great deal of sense to me, is that the difference between isopathy and homeopathy is whether the substance (and let's say it *is* the "same substance") is given *because it is the same*, or whether it is given based on correspondence of the symptom picture.

The concept of Sepia is proved squid ink; that of Nat Mur is proved table salt...back to what I wrote earlier, the difference between what it does and what it is.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

That is exactly what I wrote.........

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

OK, let's have it differently....

A patient has been working for years in a chemical factory and is now chronically poisoned with arsenic; as part of ODD, I will use potencies of Arsenicum Album to eliminate and material and/or energetic remnant of the toxic metal.
That is Isotherapy.

A patient presents with a complicated story that eventually repertorises as Arsenicum Album as found in the provings, in the Materia Medicas. He was never in contact with arsenic.
That is Homeopathy.

BTW, in both cases I would use a full F series.

Better????

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

Hahnemann was an expert on poisoning symptoms. I am often amazed by how much we can learn about a remedy from a detailed physiological study of the action of the poison. Recently in Dr. Will Taylor's internet classes, we have been comparing the nerve poisoning mechanisms of Curare, Nux-v, Conium which are used in pharmaceuticals. We don't seem to know much about Gels just because it is not used as a pharmaceutical. You won't get the subtle symptoms that are so valuable in selecting a remedy, but you understand the basic physiological mechanism. Reports of poisoning are used especially if they contain lots of symptomatic detail. I am unsure how this information is used in relationship to proving symptoms. Is a poisoning symptom like the background music to proving symptoms? Hints, but not very useful references in choosing remedies. Or are they used along side proving symptoms?

Ellen Madono

Dr. Roz,

Taking your example of a fractured bone. One use of a remedy is to speed up the healing of the bone during the first 3-8 days after the fracture. Ruta or symph. might do the job without any reference to the individual's reaction. We give Arn. at first and then think about the bone. We are not thinking of the injured person.

But if the bone is in a place that is poorly supplied with blood vessels, then we want to think more deeply about the person who requires healing. It is going to take longer to heal. Or if the fracture or wound does not heal easily. As you say, the person was attacked, perhaps sexually attacked. Then the deeper wound is the emotional wound. In that case, you want to use a remedy that deals more with the emotional reaction of the person.

The first example does not require a high level of similarity. The effect of the remedy is intended to be local and superficial. The whole person has not be affected is the assumption.

The second case, requires a much deeper remedy and similitude is greater. The whole person is involved in the cure.

Best,
Ellen

Ellen Madono