Ramakrishnan's work

[Maria Bohle]

It was written
and
from

remedies as

Ahh, I think this is the key point. Cancer indeed takes an agressive
approach.
We know the immune system has been infiltrated and so we too must
apply the pressure. We have all had cases where the correct remedy had
to
be repeated numberous times before we got a bite (long term chronics).the
His results are

This is my main question about some classical prescribing. No knocks,
just observation.
While it is wonderful to give one remedy and have it clear everything up,
that does not always work.
I am currently on a good remedy, my homeopath is very 'one remedy' and
leave the rest alone., now the
remedy is working, but there are annoying symptoms either the remedy
doesn't cover or my vital force has
been ignoring. I imagine Cancer is that way also, somehow ignored by the
vital force.

I have found fibroids often come into this area also.
You treat, all else improves and those darn fibroids are untouched.

Hahnemann was a clinician, he spoke of the totality of the 'clinical
symptoms' are not the blood test results, etc
part of those clinical symptoms.

In cases Ramakrishnan works on, is he finding several symptom totalities?
The totality of the diseased organ or tissue,
the totality of the patient himself, and the miasmatic totality?

If my remdy is working, but I have an untouched symptom (pick one: sore
knee, uterine fibroid, diarrhea, etc etc)
wouldn't it matter the degree of perceived danger that sx could cause.
Cancer we would abandon the remedy and aim for that, a sore knee we
might do something about if it was causing problems (low dose acute
remedy), fibroid - well that is unseen and not always symptomatic, so do
we in good conscience ignore it? I have done that to be surprised when
the client came back after most of her active day to day symptoms have
improved , to find the fibroid had grown.

but >> I would like to bring to issue some of the more obvious and
controversial
doctrines of

of

Would it be better to assume he prescibes on different totalities in the
same patient?
We all know, no agreement between remedy and patient doesn't work at all.

Sounds like an interesting book and worth having.
It does bring up a lot of questions.

Warmly, Maria

[jdurfeeathome]

In a message dated 7/22/2002 5:08:52 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
MBohle@juno.com writes:
When I think about it I do not see it that the cancer is ignored somehow by
the vital force. The vital force cannot get to the cancer due to organ and
system disjunction. The VF brings about a cure by setting into order the
multitude of functions of the different organs and systems. This in turn
brings order once again to the immune system where the cancer can be dealt
with.
Cancer is always present in the body and the immune system is always
contending with it. The immune systems function relies on normal function of
the organs and systems, and yes, the mental and emotions being. The vital
force does its work through our biologic systems.

In cancer the problem is very deep, affecting many parts of the body first.
Before the cancer lodges in an area there is derangement. When the cancer is
severe and progressed all is a disarray. I suspect that this is why more than
one remedy is needed. The remedies that are organ specific repair damage at
the actual site of the cancer while the cancer nosode or other nosode used
brings a more total effect. One may wonder why a person gets cancer in a
bone as opposed to the liver, or brain. It is simply because this is where
the body is its weakest first in it defense to the particular cancer cell
present. But as time goes by other parts through the disease start to break
down, maybe the bone next or the lymph system. Ramakrishnan’s work suggests
that these areas of invasion often (but not always) need special attention
with the remedies. When the case indicates a clear call for a constitutional
remedy he uses it in conjunction with a cancer or other nosode.

"I have found fibroids often come into this area also.
You treat, all else improves and those darn fibroids are untouched."

You have not used a remedy that addresses the fibroid problem. You may have
used a remedy that helped but it somehow missed the fibroid target. Seeking a
remedy that will target this issue may help, more specific to the area or
perhaps to the hormonal system that is often involved in fibroid formation.

"In cases Ramakrishnan works on, is he finding several symptom totalities?
The totality of the diseased organ or tissue,
the totality of the patient himself, and the miasmatic totality? "

I think that he is treating the totality of the diseased organ or tissue and
then the totality of the miasm with a cancer nosode along with it. Sometimes
he uses a constitutional approach in conjunction with a cancer or other
nosode when is seems particularly clear and indicated. At times he uses
other remedies in conjunction to control pain, bleeding and other problems
that come up. These remedies are not necessarily given on the same day but
are given in overlapping time frame for duration of action, very close to
each other.

His main nosodes are carcinocin and scirrhinum. The main indications are
scirrhinum if the tumor is hard like a stone and carcinocin with family
history, but family history is not mandatory. Carcinocin is used the most.
Scirrhinum when there is liver involvement or when carc. fails to act towards
cure, or when carc. has started the case but then the tumor becomes hard, he
changes to scir.

"well, that is unseen and not always symptomatic, so do
we in good conscience ignore it? I have done that to be surprised when
the client came back after most of her active day to day symptoms have
improved, to find the fibroid had grown"

This points to the advantage of the use of allopathic tests or maybe just
something as simple as an old fashioned, hands on physical exam. Hahnemann,
as a doctor, I'm sure did all he could with a physical exam to gain
information. How do you think things were determined like masses in rectums,
hemorrhoids in throats and ovarian masses? What doctor in his right mind
would exclude this kind of exam yet here in the US homeopaths are not using
this tool to the fullest benefit. Many are afraid to look in ears, palpate an
abdomen, do a breast exam, etc., etc., for fear of litigation. (and lack of
training). If we have clients that prefer homeopathy and abhor allopaths
what kind of service do we give if we do not look into things as fully as
possible? I think H and the other old time homeopaths would have been
thrilled to see into a bone or a liver and rubrics and generals would have
been developed to help one find the remedy that pertains to this level of
seeing symptomology that is now available to us.

Ramakrishnan uses all the modern tools available to ascertain signs and
symptoms and to monitor progress, whether its an x-ray, CT scan, MRI, blood
tests. This is often how he knows when to change a remedy and bring a patient
to cure instead of failure.

Here in the US, if homeopathy is to progress, we will have to come to some
sort of meeting grounds with allopaths to use their tools and services to
provide eyes into those places we have not the resources to see for these
complicated and severe cases. If we don't we must be content to try to clean
up the cancer messes the allopaths deem uncurable.

"Would it be better to assume he prescribes on different totalities in the
same patient?"

You might be able to say this. To me it is almost like he makes broad
generalization on the use of a remedy. Unless there is more than the book
reveals this is how it seems. He calls them "Wide-Spectrum Cancer
Specifics."

Best,
Barbara
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]