more on confirmatory methods

[andyh]

Dear folks,

Re: Objective Confirmatory Methods: Although these methods are adjuncts being used by Hahnemannian homeopaths, I'm aware that "idea inertia" and other factors may prevent the point of the discussion from getting across, which is:

§ 2
The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles.

The advantage of having a reliable objective referent (if one actually presently exists or can be developed) is to reach HIGHER on the part of paragraph 2 which says "...in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way...".

Objective confirmatory methods are not written in the Organon. But I think paragraph 2 is pretty clear, in case substantiation for advancement in this area is needed from seminal authorities. So if reliable methods can be developed, perfected, shared with an open mind, the result may help improve the present (at least in US) (maybe 60% AVERAGE rate of success on first prescrips in chronic cases; and maybe 60% AVERAGE success rate overall, on aggregate). (This may be a high estimate for the average in the field given (anecdotally) the number of failures walking around after
seeing a homeopath without reporting success--and this includes MANY homeopaths).
(these estimates based on percentages cited by Mangialavori (1/3 of his pts not helped), C. Wansbrough (60% bullseyes even while using biolumanetics (which has a problem with controlling other variables, unlike Pupillary response).

Possible reasons for failure:
-pt omits information
-pt forgets information
-the key issues are hidden (internal)
-the mental aspects of the remedy needed have not been elucidated, and the physical peculiar is not sufficient to lead to the remedy
-homeopaths (esp early in practice career) miss a lot of cases via casetaking and case analysis failure, lack of mm knowledge, followup mistakes, etc.
-the pattern recognition is too difficult to accomplish for lack of symptoms in case, and lack of method to pinpoint the exact remedy based on what is available in materia medica data
-many cases are missed that are never heard from again, so no feedback is given
-Even when we are "sure", we make the pt be the ONLY means of confirming the remedy (which involves great DELAY (at least 4-6 weeks) if we are wrong)

and, (from Andre Saine (see: http://www.homeopathy.ca/articles/cause ... ilure.html

One of the greatest sources of failure is a "defective" patient. This is the
patient who does not properly communicate his symptoms to the
homeopath. It could be related to one's culture, to lack of
self-awareness, to inadequate use of language, shyness, etc., or it could
be related to a non-compliant patient.

Another great source of failure would be patients having a "defective"
disease related to an apparent paucity of symptoms (ORGANON
Paragraph 172).

What other major cause of failure exists besides the ones already
mentioned? In fact, the greatest source of failure of all in homeopathy is
the "defective" physician.

If we had to evaluate the success of individual homeopathic practitioners
with more than a few years of experience we find out that the range of
success varies greatly between about 20 and 85 %. What is the reason
for such a big gap? We find out that success in practice greatly depends
on the knowledge, skills, method, tools and experience of each individual
practitioner.

Up to 80% of our failures are related to the physician himself:

Defective case taking 40%
Defective case analysis 15%
Difficulty searching the materia medica 10%
Wrong assessment on the follow-up 5%
Defective tools 10%

Defective patient 10%
Defective diseases 5%
Incurable cases 5%

But why does the rate of success vary so much from one physician to the
next? When we study the history of homeopathy we realize with great
astonishment that of the many thousands of homeopathic physicians very
few mastered their discipline. It is well recognized that aside from
Hahnemann, the two physicians who obtained the greatest success in
homeopathy were Lippe and Bœnninghausen. We can say that they have
both reached the promised land of homeopathy. Other great prescribers
of our school would include P. P. Wells, H. N. Guernsey, Carroll Dunham
and Constantine Hering.

Since each of us is not (yet) on a par with the above individuals, if we had a reliable method which let us know WHEN we had failed BEFORE WE EVEN GAVE THE REMEDY, would that not be an essential help in toward paragraph 2?

Not investigating the use of an objective confirmatory means the practitioner presumes a lot about their success rate vis a vis paragraph 2 above. For many who are superior practitioners, maybe they don't really need it, especially when their success rate far outstrips the (maybe 60% success rate that is likely to be the profession average in chronic cases). For most practitioners, if they are interested in earning what the client pays them, it probably is a need long past due to investigate these techniques. Because the options are few and not well documented, and opposition
from idea inertia is high, it takes some effort to investigate and put this into practice. Since it is not taught traditionally, of course there will be inertia. There are many using muscle testing, some using pupillary response, a handful using Biolumanetics, probably a handful using Points of Wiehe or other methods. There is great room here for development of new, inexpensive, objective confirmatory methods and/or perfection of existing ones.

It was good to hear from Rosemary about her experience with Pupillary Response. Eventually perhaps we will hear more from David Little, and others with more experience actually using one or more of these methods extensively and successfully. Perhaps they can say how much it increased their fulfillment of paragraph 2. I know from reading the Biolumanetics website; and knowing how many clients and practitioners have NEVER found a chronic remedy that worked for them, that there is both a great potential, and a great need. Actualizing that potential, and fulfilling that need
will take advancement in this area. To the extent that confirmatories can help, it is clear that development in this area will take some effort.

Best to All,
Andy