Minutus

Dear Marleen

About a year ago I bought Dr R's book for a colleague abroad. Just before I
sent it I started to look at it to see I liked it enough to buy for myself.

My problem was that as has been mentioned it is like a template. It seemed
not give one the science behind the remedy selections and all I saw for the
want of a better word, was the ART of Dr R to apply his knowledge of
Homoeopathy to cases of patients with cancerous tumours.

It must not be forgotten that cancer is not a disease, but the tumours are
only a symptom (serious symptoms - granted).
Cancer tumours - however caused - can be regarded as an auto-immune disease
where the body is not able to detect cancerous cells (similar to an internal
security service not being able to detect and destroy terrorists)

Cancerous cells are produced all the time in the body, but as they are
produced our healthy immune system detects and destroys them. If for some
reason it fails to detect these cells as cancerous and allows them to grow
and multiply, then a tumour is formed.

Therefore as per standard instructions, I take a full case and treat the
totality, changing my angle as to urgency of the case and the strength of
symptoms in the patient.

In a post-op situation, I would attend to the way the surgical incisions are
healing and how the patient is mentally emotionally and physically and again
treat the totality of the symptoms.

Hope this has been of use.
I would WELCOME comments from colleagues who have treated more patients with
c/a.

Rgds
Soroush
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 22:55:33 +0200
From: Marleen
Subject: Re[2]: Plussing Dr R.
Monday, May 12, 2003, 6:34:41 PM, DMH wrote:
Ramakrishnan's
in treating
cancer patient),
after I'd
once or
$500 for
Cinnabar, Rosemary thanks for answering my question, Rochelle you too.

I do not plan to treat it myself, i asked
this question because i have a close relative that has... had?
breast cancer, my sister, her breast is removed 4 weeks ago.. so i
wondered, if we seek a classical homeopath and let him read the book, would
he be
able to treat according Dr R principles.
Marleen.

Hi Soroush,

I'm interested in your remark that

on 5/13/03 6:19 AM, Finrod at finrod@webstar.co.uk wrote:
because that is what I assumed would be the case.
The "science behind the remedy selections" is what learning homeopathy is
all about -- casetaking, case analysis, materia medica; in other words, the
hard part!


Method of posology, right? And maybe specific use of intercurrents?

Thanks Soroush, I am really appreciating this discussion of people's
approach to and experience with cancer patients.

I would love to hear more specifics -- how serious or urgent have the cases
you've treated been (*all* cancer is serious, of course!), and have you been
completely satisfied with results of the "conventional" (I mean
"conventional homeopathic") approach? Perhaps urgency is the factor that
might make Dr. R's approach more needed?

Do you sometimes use local/pathology-based/lesional prescribing, or have you
found that unnecessary?

Just curious!

Thanks,
Shannon

Hi, Soroush.

I think your evaluation of Dr. R's book is right on. What he leaves out is
case management and how he comes to decisions like potency and second
prescription -- how he evaluates a patient's progress or lack of same, and
how he interprets and deals with the patient's emotional state and return of
old symptoms. I found that taking his seminar helped to clarify some of
those areas to a great extent. It's also been important, not only for me but
for others as well, to have Dr. R supervise one's first patients, either by
taking the case himself with the original homeopath acting as an assistant,
or by providing guidance through e-mail consultations.

The deeper mastery one has of advanced homeopathic therapeutics and case
management of the deepest, most complicated diseases, the less guidance of
this sort one would need from Dr. R, since his decisions and his case
analysis really are quite classical. His posology is unusual, although
everything he does is based solidly on the Organon and on the work of
Compton and Burnett.

David Little has pointed out that Hahnemann himself in the footnote to
Paragraph 282 in the Sixth Organon discusses the use of multiple daily
"plussed" doses to counteract the primary "efflorescence" of a miasm.
Hahneman was talking about the three basic chronic miasms and their
"efflorescence" on the skin. If cancer is truly a miasm, its primary
efflorescence would be the tumor and its metastases. Therefore, Hahnemann's
comments about treating primary miasmatic efflorescences would apply to
tumors and metastases in any location, and Dr. Ramakrishnan's approach is
based upon solid homeopathic principles.

Hahnemann says, in this footnote:

< "The rule to commence the homoeopathic treatment of chronic diseases with
the smallest possible doses and only gradually to augment them is subject to
a notable exception in the treatment of the three great miasms while they
still effloresce on the skin, i.e. , recently erupted itch. the untouched
chancre (on the sexual organs, labia, mouth or lips, and so forth) and the
figwarts. These not only tolerate, but indeed require, from the very
beginning large doses of their specific remedies of ever higher and higher
degrees of dynamization daily (possibly also several times daily). If this
course be pursued, there is no danger to be feared, as is the case in the
treatment of diseases hidden within, that the excessive dose while it
extinguishes the disease, initiates and by continued usage possibly produces
a chronic medicinal disease. "

So the book actually is a guide to Dr. Ramakrishnan's personal clinical
experience in treating a large number of cancer cases, many successfully,
and can be used as is by practitioners familiar with such fine points of
classical homeopathy. For the rest of us, a bit more guidance and
instruction on these fine points proves useful to boost our confidence in
making treatment decisions.

Rosemary