Minutus

My thoughts on this discussion at this point are this:-

. two dis-similar disease states can co-exist, simultaneously. I agree with
this and have seen it many times

. that the two (or more) diseased states might require their own seperate,
different simillimum - they will have their own totalities. The emphasis is
on 'might require'. I have scanned, briefly and in my head, cases over the
past 18 months and cannot think of a single instance when this has happened.
Every case that has presented with more than one diseased state has been
cured by the one simillimum.

. this simultaneous presentation of more than one diseased state isn't a
layered case - in a layered case you might get a hint of other factors that
don't fit the upper layer, a strong genetic inheritance for example, but it
will only be a hint and will not dominate - the upper layer is then
prescribed on and as the case progresses the next layer will then dominate
etc.

. I am also assuming that Hahnemann isn't referring to an acute which is
present at the same time as the chronic - this also is something different

. so if more than one diseased state exists simultaneously and their
totality does not correlate with one remedy picture, what do we do in
practice?

. perhaps it is back to basics and apply the 'what needs to be
cured?'question so we give the separate diseased states some priority.
Andrew gave us stomach ache and a cold - well I wouldn't even prescribe for
a cold - hardly a disease. The common cold is quite good for the immune
system - you get one, it lasts a few days then it is gone. Only if it
becomes inappropriate to the harmony of well being would you prescribe - it
causes undue suffering, lasts a long time, the person gets a cold every
couple of weeks - then you would give this a priority.

But how do you choose say between asthma and rheumatoid arthritis when the
two do not correspond to one remedy. Clearly the asthma is more life
threatening and would take priority.

Surely this prioritising would be self evident whilst taking the case and if
you had to choose it would not present a problem.

The idea of COMBINING separate disease state totalities because together
they do not correspond to one remedy is a complete nonsense - together they
are NOT going to make a case, the case will become completely muddled - this
will be evident in the choice of remedies one has at the end of the case
analysis - NONE will fit the entire case. Then you will know that you have,
what I think is a quite unusual situation, of having to decide which to
treat first.

But so far much of this discussion has been theoretical. I like to apply
theory to practice. The theory is great, but at the end of the day it is the
cases which come through your door where you apply your theories. What would
be really interesting is for someone to present a case or cases which
clearly show this unusual situation and how it was managed.

Any offers??

Best wishes, Joy Lucas

Joy said:
they do not correspond to one remedy is a >complete nonsense

yes exactly. so is combining the symptoms of two diseases when separately
they form coherent pictures of remedies.

andrew

I'm Sorry Ladies and Gents,

but aren't we supposed to bin the idea of 'diseases' and treat the TOTALITY of symptoms in front of us at all times or am I being too naive ?

Jas

Phosphor wrote:

But I also said Andrew that I think this situation is unusual - to have a
case whereby you are presented with a case with more than one disease state
which, together, do not correspond to one remedy.

We need case examples to show us this is happening (or not). This is why I
asked that you supply case examples (or any one else to give us case
examples) to show this. Otherwise this is nothing more than theoretical
guesswork, even propaganda, which really could confuse students of
homeopathy.

best wishes, Joy

> We need case examples to show us this is happening (or not).

well, this is easy. just read aph42. it's all there in black and white. two
dissimilar diseases occupying separate parts of the organism. One does not
anihilate another precisely because they are dissimilar. Nothing confusing
about this at all.

andrew

Your emphasis has been on chronic and acute, or chronic and accident/injury
appearing together in the same person simultaneously. This is very easy to
understand. Of course someone can have a broken arm and liver disease
(e.g.)etc or a cold and stomach cancer etc.

My emphasis has been on more than one CHRONIC pathology appearing
simultaneously which do not render to one simillimum. I still think this is
unusual. Did Hahnemann differentiate anywhere about this. He was writing in
his time, we are writing now - some things do change, and it is in the
practice of the theory which interests me (and by practice I mean to include
cure!!)

Joy
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

> My emphasis has been on more than one CHRONIC >pathology appearing
simultaneously which do not render to >one simillimum. I still think this is
unusual. Did Hahnemann >differentiate anywhere about this.

yes, in about the last quarter of the Organon. Miasms are a specific example
of the phenomena of dissimilar diseases jostling around in the body. His
plan is: determine which is dominant, then repertorize on the symptoms of it
alone..not on the mythical 'whole' of the patient.

andrew