is this classical homoeopathy ?
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:21 am
Dear Manish,
Firstly, I apologize for the use of capitals as emphasis. It is not
intended to indicate emotion or shouting. If this email list supported
italics, all the capitalized words would be in italics instead.
Vipassana infonet wrote:
----
A certain physician in Albany, N. Y., was called in consultation on a
so - called case of phthisis pulmonalis. The case was in allopathic
hands. After carefully examining the case, he was asked: " What is your
diagnosis, doctor? " Stannum, " said the doctor. " What! " " Stannum, "
replied the doctor. Stannum was the diagnosis of the remedy, not the
disease. It was given and cured the patient.
----
Manish wrote:
is this homeopathy ?
999 So, yes, it IS HOMEOPATHY (the medical modality).
999 Thanks for the references. I have read all of David's website
previously some years ago and some of the articles repeatedly. I am
just beginning to get into Vijayakar, and look forward to reading his
books.
999
Now, the SAFETY of techniques of situational, and (in particular)
routine, use of homeopathic and isopathic prophylactics is another issue
you bring up to a significant level in your post. No one is more
concerned about these than myself. But one of the points of the
previous posts was that isopathic and homeopathic prophylactics (the
categories HP and IP in that post) are DISSIMILAR to the totality of the
person. Not in all cases, certainly, but in many, problems with
disordered cases arise because a remedy was a PARTIAL SIMILAR that the
organism responded to, but idiosyncratically because it was NOT AN
ACCURATE FACSIMILE, but similar ENOUGH to create more disorder and
change the overall symptom picture.
It is important to realize that when a remedy is given and it is
CURATIVE, it is JUST LIKE a member of a PROVING cohort having a curative
reaction.
And that:
when a member of a proving cohort develops symptoms, it is because the
remedy being proved has SOME SIMILARITY to their overall totality. My
point was to say that HP and IP are not intended to have ANY similarity
to the PERSON. They are ALLOPATHIC interventions to provoke immunity to
an INFECTIOUS AGENT (or in the other cases I gave, to a miasm or to a
circumstance (eg surgery, etc). Thus to a lesser or greater degree
DISSIMILAR, they may have much less similarity to a botched prescription
based on the totality than you think. That was my point in likening
them to provings. The statement was made to try to try the contrast
between the use of isopathic, homeopathic, circumstantial, and miasmatic
prophylactics with all other interventions in homeopathy (which are
based on symptoms of the client being matched to pathogenesis and
clinical sx of a remedy). I do not claim that prophylactics never
disorder cases or that high potencies of them are not disordering to
sensitive individuals (I addressed this in the last post). I am not
trying to CHAMPION indiscriminate use of prophylactics. I have been
trying to clarify the understanding of them and their usefulness in
preventing suffering. If this is unclear please let me know.
I do not use prophylactics gratuitiously because of a concern just like
yours. But I do use them, and in ascending potency if needed so they
will WORK ON A SUSTAINED BASIS (when they do not provoke uncomfortable
aggravation). I only do this WHEN a DANGER warrants protection beyond
the chronic remedy and makes their use essential to maximize protection
of a client. Infectious dangers are infrequent in my locale, but there
are a few serious ones (Lyme Disease notably) and one must know the
method so as to be able to prepare for other incursions when they do
become an issue.
Who else had this policy? Members of the IHA, Pierre Schmidt, Andre
Saine, and likely thousands of other classical homeopaths (most of them
probably in India! since 1801 (for hom proph); 1830 (for isopathic
proph) and no later than 1900 (for ascending potency prophylactic
"immunization". So, as it is said in the U.S. (Afro american syntax)
: Chill out
Manish wrote:
--If it is misunderstanding (which it almost has to be, since I am a
classical homeopath in the sense that this normally connotes); then
please try to understand my responses here which I have taken great
pains to write!
--If it is disagreement that you experience pain, then you are
disagreeing with an analysis, not a vehemently polemical stance. Thus
vehemence is not necessary in response. If any of what I write sounds
vehement, it is because others reacting vehemently or without logical
basis to the analysis are taking up more time than I would like by
requiring my clarification,and by not participating with logic. Logical
disagreement, well explained, teaches. Emotional or dogmatic responses
only create animosity and frustration.
--If I am really "off base" with anything in the analyses I have made, I
would appreciate correction, but in a logical and comprehensible manner
in the context of the parameters of the discussion.
Manish wrote:
Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the discussion involves the
weighing of options available to the practitioner in the context of the
dangers and political issues of conventional vaccination. In that
context, when significant dangers are presented to a client, which is
the lesser risk-- trusting one's choice and posology of the chronic
simillimum; adding in prophylactic methods; advising conventional
vaccination? This discussion is not a SIMPLE one.
999 I did not say this. I said that, according to Hahnemann, a
proving of a remedy with (any valence to the case) was (for a healthy
organism) strengthening and beneficial. I was trying to point out the
similarity of prophylactics to a proving (they are both instances in
which the rx is not given according to an attempt to match the sx of the
totality with a remedy pathogenesis) YOU took my point farther than I
did, seem to want to utilize your excursion of my point to criticize ME.
I said essentially this: An isopathic prophylactic is given using
conventional disease diagnosis and applied not according to matching a
Hahnemannian totality with remedy proving and clinical data but BY THE
NATURE OF THE DISEASE MATERIAL OR OPPORTUNISTIC ORGANISM COMPRISING THE
REMEDY. So, clearly it is not being employed according to a
Hahnemannian totality (chronic, acute, or group acute). The
prophylactic is not given on the basis of similarity to the totality of
the case. Thus it is not intended to be similar to the totality, but is
to a lesser or greater degree DISSIMILAR. The more dissimilar an rx to
a chronic case is, the less likely it is to having any disordering
effect on the case. How many times (in your early career chronic
prescribing) have you given an rx (attempted simillimum of the moment)
with (virtually) no effects beyond ephemeral flare up of NEW symptoms,
then a return to status quo; or no effect WHATSOEVER? People on this
thread are in some cases having great difficulty understanding
homeopathic prophylaxis and are really concerned about its potential
danger. I am concerned too, but, these methods ARE NOTHING NEW in
classical homeopathy. This explanation was an attempt to clarify that
giving very dissimilar rx to "immunize" against DANGER is not probably
equivalent to the results of a sloppy prescriber giving many and high
potency PARTIAL SIMILARS over a long period of time to obscure or
disorder the case. Perhaps I am not correct in this idea--this was an
attempt to clarify the field of discussion for those seemingly horrified
by the concept of dissimilarity (when several of the prophylactic
measures under discussion are not arbited at all by the symptomologic
totality anyway). Is my writing really that difficult to understand?
And, I also said this:
A proving is a challenge to the organism that Hahnemann said was
BENEFICIAL and strengthening (to at least an already reasonably
healthy organism). Do any of the provers know whether an rx is similar
or dissimilar to their totality of sx prior to the proving? If they do,
then it is not an objective proving. So giving a prophylactic not in
accordance with the totality of sx is very similar to a proving. And
Hahnemann said provings are ultimately strengthening for the healthy,
did he not? You take my statement to mean that ergo I think
prophylactics can only be strengthening and beneficial. You do me a
disservice by misunderstanding and jumping to such a conclusion because
I must spend a lot of time responding.
Manish wrote:
andy writes that using a dissimilar remedy( without any indication)
999 Certainly prophylactics (with the exception of the Chronic
simillimum; and Genus epidemicus, an acute group simillimum which cures
and protects) are not given on indications by Hahnemannian totality.
That was a main point of the last post.
Manish wrote:
if so, why not add sulph. , psor. , syph. , merc. , thuja , medorrh. ,
carc., tub. as well to the homeo immunization "chart" . perhaps we
would " strengthen" the organism against everything for ever !!!!!. oh
god !
999 Sorry, but this last statement is not intellectual discourse, but
sarcastic and emotional. And I would prefer that religion not be
invoked in a discussion of a science. I was attempting to clarify the
nature of prophylaxis as it has been used in homeopathy for 200 years,
and in response, you treat me as if I am suggesting something
outlandish. It is (perhaps?) a sign of a holder of DOGMA and reaction
to one's own cognitive dissonance? Reaction to challenge of dearly held
precepts which are part of a rigid thought structure instead of fluid
intellectual understanding? I don't know. But the above emotional
statement by you is not helpful to me or your other correspondents on
this list, and shows little capacity or intention to understand a
colleague using logic and intellect.
I was a bit angry in the beginning of this thread because someone
eschewing vaccinations AND TEACHING AND ADVISING PEOPLE also openly
denigrated investigation of prophylactic methods that have been used by
the very best classical homeopaths for over 100 years. This to me is
illogical and wasteful, whether one ultimately decides to use the
methods or not. They are options. This is an adjunct topic of
homeopathy, and people seem to be so "religious" about the tenets of
prescribing on a totality that they seem not to be able to rationally
discuss anything else. I became frustrated at the lack of logical
discourse on the topic. I apologize. But any of the few statements
that I made at that point which appeared disrespectful were only
intended to provoke participation and explanation of viewpoint so more
of the truth could possibly be uncovered. Learning is one of the main
purposes of a discussion list, is it not? That and meeting like-minded
people is certainly the only reason I participate. If discussions tend
to become just a time-sink and no longer MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL then I can
do without them.
Best,
Andy
Firstly, I apologize for the use of capitals as emphasis. It is not
intended to indicate emotion or shouting. If this email list supported
italics, all the capitalized words would be in italics instead.
Vipassana infonet wrote:
----
A certain physician in Albany, N. Y., was called in consultation on a
so - called case of phthisis pulmonalis. The case was in allopathic
hands. After carefully examining the case, he was asked: " What is your
diagnosis, doctor? " Stannum, " said the doctor. " What! " " Stannum, "
replied the doctor. Stannum was the diagnosis of the remedy, not the
disease. It was given and cured the patient.
----
Manish wrote:
is this homeopathy ?
999 So, yes, it IS HOMEOPATHY (the medical modality).
999 Thanks for the references. I have read all of David's website
previously some years ago and some of the articles repeatedly. I am
just beginning to get into Vijayakar, and look forward to reading his
books.
999
Now, the SAFETY of techniques of situational, and (in particular)
routine, use of homeopathic and isopathic prophylactics is another issue
you bring up to a significant level in your post. No one is more
concerned about these than myself. But one of the points of the
previous posts was that isopathic and homeopathic prophylactics (the
categories HP and IP in that post) are DISSIMILAR to the totality of the
person. Not in all cases, certainly, but in many, problems with
disordered cases arise because a remedy was a PARTIAL SIMILAR that the
organism responded to, but idiosyncratically because it was NOT AN
ACCURATE FACSIMILE, but similar ENOUGH to create more disorder and
change the overall symptom picture.
It is important to realize that when a remedy is given and it is
CURATIVE, it is JUST LIKE a member of a PROVING cohort having a curative
reaction.
And that:
when a member of a proving cohort develops symptoms, it is because the
remedy being proved has SOME SIMILARITY to their overall totality. My
point was to say that HP and IP are not intended to have ANY similarity
to the PERSON. They are ALLOPATHIC interventions to provoke immunity to
an INFECTIOUS AGENT (or in the other cases I gave, to a miasm or to a
circumstance (eg surgery, etc). Thus to a lesser or greater degree
DISSIMILAR, they may have much less similarity to a botched prescription
based on the totality than you think. That was my point in likening
them to provings. The statement was made to try to try the contrast
between the use of isopathic, homeopathic, circumstantial, and miasmatic
prophylactics with all other interventions in homeopathy (which are
based on symptoms of the client being matched to pathogenesis and
clinical sx of a remedy). I do not claim that prophylactics never
disorder cases or that high potencies of them are not disordering to
sensitive individuals (I addressed this in the last post). I am not
trying to CHAMPION indiscriminate use of prophylactics. I have been
trying to clarify the understanding of them and their usefulness in
preventing suffering. If this is unclear please let me know.
I do not use prophylactics gratuitiously because of a concern just like
yours. But I do use them, and in ascending potency if needed so they
will WORK ON A SUSTAINED BASIS (when they do not provoke uncomfortable
aggravation). I only do this WHEN a DANGER warrants protection beyond
the chronic remedy and makes their use essential to maximize protection
of a client. Infectious dangers are infrequent in my locale, but there
are a few serious ones (Lyme Disease notably) and one must know the
method so as to be able to prepare for other incursions when they do
become an issue.
Who else had this policy? Members of the IHA, Pierre Schmidt, Andre
Saine, and likely thousands of other classical homeopaths (most of them
probably in India! since 1801 (for hom proph); 1830 (for isopathic
proph) and no later than 1900 (for ascending potency prophylactic
"immunization". So, as it is said in the U.S. (Afro american syntax)
: Chill out
Manish wrote:
--If it is misunderstanding (which it almost has to be, since I am a
classical homeopath in the sense that this normally connotes); then
please try to understand my responses here which I have taken great
pains to write!
--If it is disagreement that you experience pain, then you are
disagreeing with an analysis, not a vehemently polemical stance. Thus
vehemence is not necessary in response. If any of what I write sounds
vehement, it is because others reacting vehemently or without logical
basis to the analysis are taking up more time than I would like by
requiring my clarification,and by not participating with logic. Logical
disagreement, well explained, teaches. Emotional or dogmatic responses
only create animosity and frustration.
--If I am really "off base" with anything in the analyses I have made, I
would appreciate correction, but in a logical and comprehensible manner
in the context of the parameters of the discussion.
Manish wrote:
Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the discussion involves the
weighing of options available to the practitioner in the context of the
dangers and political issues of conventional vaccination. In that
context, when significant dangers are presented to a client, which is
the lesser risk-- trusting one's choice and posology of the chronic
simillimum; adding in prophylactic methods; advising conventional
vaccination? This discussion is not a SIMPLE one.
999 I did not say this. I said that, according to Hahnemann, a
proving of a remedy with (any valence to the case) was (for a healthy
organism) strengthening and beneficial. I was trying to point out the
similarity of prophylactics to a proving (they are both instances in
which the rx is not given according to an attempt to match the sx of the
totality with a remedy pathogenesis) YOU took my point farther than I
did, seem to want to utilize your excursion of my point to criticize ME.
I said essentially this: An isopathic prophylactic is given using
conventional disease diagnosis and applied not according to matching a
Hahnemannian totality with remedy proving and clinical data but BY THE
NATURE OF THE DISEASE MATERIAL OR OPPORTUNISTIC ORGANISM COMPRISING THE
REMEDY. So, clearly it is not being employed according to a
Hahnemannian totality (chronic, acute, or group acute). The
prophylactic is not given on the basis of similarity to the totality of
the case. Thus it is not intended to be similar to the totality, but is
to a lesser or greater degree DISSIMILAR. The more dissimilar an rx to
a chronic case is, the less likely it is to having any disordering
effect on the case. How many times (in your early career chronic
prescribing) have you given an rx (attempted simillimum of the moment)
with (virtually) no effects beyond ephemeral flare up of NEW symptoms,
then a return to status quo; or no effect WHATSOEVER? People on this
thread are in some cases having great difficulty understanding
homeopathic prophylaxis and are really concerned about its potential
danger. I am concerned too, but, these methods ARE NOTHING NEW in
classical homeopathy. This explanation was an attempt to clarify that
giving very dissimilar rx to "immunize" against DANGER is not probably
equivalent to the results of a sloppy prescriber giving many and high
potency PARTIAL SIMILARS over a long period of time to obscure or
disorder the case. Perhaps I am not correct in this idea--this was an
attempt to clarify the field of discussion for those seemingly horrified
by the concept of dissimilarity (when several of the prophylactic
measures under discussion are not arbited at all by the symptomologic
totality anyway). Is my writing really that difficult to understand?
And, I also said this:
A proving is a challenge to the organism that Hahnemann said was
BENEFICIAL and strengthening (to at least an already reasonably
healthy organism). Do any of the provers know whether an rx is similar
or dissimilar to their totality of sx prior to the proving? If they do,
then it is not an objective proving. So giving a prophylactic not in
accordance with the totality of sx is very similar to a proving. And
Hahnemann said provings are ultimately strengthening for the healthy,
did he not? You take my statement to mean that ergo I think
prophylactics can only be strengthening and beneficial. You do me a
disservice by misunderstanding and jumping to such a conclusion because
I must spend a lot of time responding.
Manish wrote:
andy writes that using a dissimilar remedy( without any indication)
999 Certainly prophylactics (with the exception of the Chronic
simillimum; and Genus epidemicus, an acute group simillimum which cures
and protects) are not given on indications by Hahnemannian totality.
That was a main point of the last post.
Manish wrote:
if so, why not add sulph. , psor. , syph. , merc. , thuja , medorrh. ,
carc., tub. as well to the homeo immunization "chart" . perhaps we
would " strengthen" the organism against everything for ever !!!!!. oh
god !
999 Sorry, but this last statement is not intellectual discourse, but
sarcastic and emotional. And I would prefer that religion not be
invoked in a discussion of a science. I was attempting to clarify the
nature of prophylaxis as it has been used in homeopathy for 200 years,
and in response, you treat me as if I am suggesting something
outlandish. It is (perhaps?) a sign of a holder of DOGMA and reaction
to one's own cognitive dissonance? Reaction to challenge of dearly held
precepts which are part of a rigid thought structure instead of fluid
intellectual understanding? I don't know. But the above emotional
statement by you is not helpful to me or your other correspondents on
this list, and shows little capacity or intention to understand a
colleague using logic and intellect.
I was a bit angry in the beginning of this thread because someone
eschewing vaccinations AND TEACHING AND ADVISING PEOPLE also openly
denigrated investigation of prophylactic methods that have been used by
the very best classical homeopaths for over 100 years. This to me is
illogical and wasteful, whether one ultimately decides to use the
methods or not. They are options. This is an adjunct topic of
homeopathy, and people seem to be so "religious" about the tenets of
prescribing on a totality that they seem not to be able to rationally
discuss anything else. I became frustrated at the lack of logical
discourse on the topic. I apologize. But any of the few statements
that I made at that point which appeared disrespectful were only
intended to provoke participation and explanation of viewpoint so more
of the truth could possibly be uncovered. Learning is one of the main
purposes of a discussion list, is it not? That and meeting like-minded
people is certainly the only reason I participate. If discussions tend
to become just a time-sink and no longer MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL then I can
do without them.
Best,
Andy