The Treatment of Complex Miasms/aphorism 42 etc./David Little
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:52 am
Hi to everyone!
Dear David,
this message refers to:
Yeah, that's it - 'suppression'.
Well, at Hahnemann's time there were rather crude methods of
suppression, today the methods of suppression
are more sophisticated. Isn't vaccination a suppression in advance,is
it? Nothing to say about of the "usual" medication and treatment, from
antibiotics to surgery. Surely that's also reason why the inheritated
miasms are gaining ground.
What about the ethics of administering a placebo? I have always got the
idea that a patient schouldn't be deceived and should be told what she
or he is given. If for some reasons it's not the time for a remedy, I
think one should convince a patient to wait. The patient should have
enough trust in homoeopathy to accept that and be 'patient'.
Of course a placebo has got a certain influence on the vital force, the
mind in stronger than the body, and if the mind is convinced that a
remedy was adminstered, self-healing processes will be activated. It's
the
magic of positive thinking - but is it worth the deception?
Very clearly stated. Thanks!
That can really spoil the case. Impatience is worst. In addition to the
similar aggravtion other symptoms that belong to the remedy given might
occure, although they have not yet been seen in the patient. There might
arise the situation of an involuntary proving. The trouble is that some
people panic.
Some homoeopath recommend waiting in such a case, others antidote with
coffee or peppermint/camphora, others recommend giving a homoeopathic
antidote, what I think is rather risky. Well, I would wait, if it is
not life threating.
Other possiblity: the potency was too low.
The reaction is very sluggish, the remedy starts to work only somewhat
relutantly and the process of healing is very slow. This is especially
true with D-potencies (which Hahnemann never used, but which are very
popular in Germany)
What would you do in such a case? Wait, repeat the same potency or go
one step higher in potency?
Sometimes something wonderful happens, the change of symptoms may lead
one to the correct remedy, but only under the condition that one takes
up the caes anew. Once again all over (well at least for the beginner,
but isn't it especially the beginner who is confronted with such
problems.) Anyway it's a chance to learn.
Mostly it is some kind of artificial proving (unfreiwillige
Arzneimittelprüfung, Arzneimittelkrankheit). The new symptoms often have
a striking similarity to the rubric found under the wrong remedy.
(I had a patient with anorexia nervosa, who hade been treated at an
antroposophic clinic before, where the doctors had the opinion of all
anorexian
girls having an Argentum Nitricum constitution, thus they ALL were given
Arg. nit. D12 every morning. My patient developped new symptoms, she had
to go to the toilet very often (URINE, copious, flatulence, STOOL,
forcible, sudden, gushing, frequent, watery, night - all in the rubrics
of Arg nit.) but then she was forbidden to go,
because the doctors thought that she did some bulemic vomiting. Well,
her parents took her out of that clinic in the end. The case
was rather simple: Sulphur C 200 did its job nicely.)
I think you talk here about acute miasms, and especially about injuries
and infections, don't you?
Thanks for your concise helpful statements on the subject.
It's fascinating if hypothesis comes true, and it's a marvellous
surprise if it doesn't.
That's the trouble with cases spoilt by allopathy, messed up by all the
sophistcated methods of suppression. Sycosis especially can really get
messed up - and some symptoms mask others. The inheritated sycotic miasm
can go progressively so deep and is so slow in reaction, it takes ages
to gain some healthy ground. Have you found that phenomenen in other
inheritated miasm as well?
Your grand clarity helps me to go from hindsight to insight!
You would like that book (mentioned below) the author got the same
modesty, esprit and good humour.
Haven't found anything. Why don't you mail the author yourself?
I'm sure you'll get an answer soon, one never knows - maybe there are
skripts in English.
info@homoeosana.ch (the publishing house) or not so reliable:
shischule@bluewin.ch (the school)
or via the www above.
By the way, I got the impression you can read German, at least you
always understood the German terms quoted from the Organon. If you want
I can scann in some page and you can try, maybe you understand it
easily.
That's the trouble. The marvels of homoeopathy you can see in acute
diseases most easily and most strikingly.
Three days sciatica, one week pneumonia, ten days diphtheria. It's
unbelievable - it's great.
I think the reason why most people in the west are not convinced of
homoeopathy is that they give it a chance too late.
God is the only healer, but Hahnemann has been his hot line operator.
Thanks for your answer
Sincerely,
Dear David,
this message refers to:
Yeah, that's it - 'suppression'.
Well, at Hahnemann's time there were rather crude methods of
suppression, today the methods of suppression
are more sophisticated. Isn't vaccination a suppression in advance,is
it? Nothing to say about of the "usual" medication and treatment, from
antibiotics to surgery. Surely that's also reason why the inheritated
miasms are gaining ground.
What about the ethics of administering a placebo? I have always got the
idea that a patient schouldn't be deceived and should be told what she
or he is given. If for some reasons it's not the time for a remedy, I
think one should convince a patient to wait. The patient should have
enough trust in homoeopathy to accept that and be 'patient'.
Of course a placebo has got a certain influence on the vital force, the
mind in stronger than the body, and if the mind is convinced that a
remedy was adminstered, self-healing processes will be activated. It's
the
magic of positive thinking - but is it worth the deception?
Very clearly stated. Thanks!
That can really spoil the case. Impatience is worst. In addition to the
similar aggravtion other symptoms that belong to the remedy given might
occure, although they have not yet been seen in the patient. There might
arise the situation of an involuntary proving. The trouble is that some
people panic.
Some homoeopath recommend waiting in such a case, others antidote with
coffee or peppermint/camphora, others recommend giving a homoeopathic
antidote, what I think is rather risky. Well, I would wait, if it is
not life threating.
Other possiblity: the potency was too low.
The reaction is very sluggish, the remedy starts to work only somewhat
relutantly and the process of healing is very slow. This is especially
true with D-potencies (which Hahnemann never used, but which are very
popular in Germany)
What would you do in such a case? Wait, repeat the same potency or go
one step higher in potency?
Sometimes something wonderful happens, the change of symptoms may lead
one to the correct remedy, but only under the condition that one takes
up the caes anew. Once again all over (well at least for the beginner,
but isn't it especially the beginner who is confronted with such
problems.) Anyway it's a chance to learn.
Mostly it is some kind of artificial proving (unfreiwillige
Arzneimittelprüfung, Arzneimittelkrankheit). The new symptoms often have
a striking similarity to the rubric found under the wrong remedy.
(I had a patient with anorexia nervosa, who hade been treated at an
antroposophic clinic before, where the doctors had the opinion of all
anorexian
girls having an Argentum Nitricum constitution, thus they ALL were given
Arg. nit. D12 every morning. My patient developped new symptoms, she had
to go to the toilet very often (URINE, copious, flatulence, STOOL,
forcible, sudden, gushing, frequent, watery, night - all in the rubrics
of Arg nit.) but then she was forbidden to go,
because the doctors thought that she did some bulemic vomiting. Well,
her parents took her out of that clinic in the end. The case
was rather simple: Sulphur C 200 did its job nicely.)
I think you talk here about acute miasms, and especially about injuries
and infections, don't you?
Thanks for your concise helpful statements on the subject.
It's fascinating if hypothesis comes true, and it's a marvellous
surprise if it doesn't.
That's the trouble with cases spoilt by allopathy, messed up by all the
sophistcated methods of suppression. Sycosis especially can really get
messed up - and some symptoms mask others. The inheritated sycotic miasm
can go progressively so deep and is so slow in reaction, it takes ages
to gain some healthy ground. Have you found that phenomenen in other
inheritated miasm as well?
Your grand clarity helps me to go from hindsight to insight!
You would like that book (mentioned below) the author got the same
modesty, esprit and good humour.
Haven't found anything. Why don't you mail the author yourself?
I'm sure you'll get an answer soon, one never knows - maybe there are
skripts in English.
info@homoeosana.ch (the publishing house) or not so reliable:
shischule@bluewin.ch (the school)
or via the www above.
By the way, I got the impression you can read German, at least you
always understood the German terms quoted from the Organon. If you want
I can scann in some page and you can try, maybe you understand it
easily.
That's the trouble. The marvels of homoeopathy you can see in acute
diseases most easily and most strikingly.
Three days sciatica, one week pneumonia, ten days diphtheria. It's
unbelievable - it's great.
I think the reason why most people in the west are not convinced of
homoeopathy is that they give it a chance too late.
God is the only healer, but Hahnemann has been his hot line operator.
Thanks for your answer
Sincerely,