Minutus

Hi Paul,

This puzzles me:
??? Very seldom!!!!!
Usually fever performs exactly this role; usually a fever left untreated
will resolve in either recover or (very rarely, and usually only if other
factors complicate recovery) death -- this is the *definition* of an acute
(as opposed to a chronic) disease. Humanity's standard "treatment" for
fevers has been to make the patient as comfortable as possible (keep them
warm/not too warm; give liquids, chicken soup, etc., etc.).

If fever is getting out of control, then the VF has simply been overwhelmed
(e.g. heatstroke, excessively severe illness, or chronic disease...)

Usually the VF *is* able to cure our ills unaided. What's so unintelligent
about that???

The definition of "chronic disease" is a mistunement of the VF such that its
efforts fail. But even in someone with chronic disease, the VF still works
very nicely *most* of the time.
Every time someone gets sick, and then gets well.
Every time someone *doesn't* get sick, in spite of e.g. overwork, bad food,
mental stress, falling of a mountain, whatever. In other words, *most* of
the time, for most of us.
??? I'm also well aware of the dangers of being hit by a passing car, but I
seldom worry too much about that, either. I don't even use a *remedy* for a
fever, unless there is other reason to do so (aka "a remedy picture"). Most
of the time when my own kids get sick (rarely now!), it's brief and they
just sleep it off. (Well yeah I'm lazy, but why poke a sleeping cub? :-/ )

VTYekkirala, the case is marvellous, and makes me wonder what could have
been done in any hospital today! Altho I was taught that a child can
tolerate a temp up to 106 (just barely above the 105.2 that developed in
Kent's case), every doctor I've ever heard talk on the subject starts
freaking out when a temp gets to 103. *Some* will tolerate leaving 102
alone, but I've never heard one be anything less than panicky once it gets
to 103. (So I've done a *lot* of patient/parent education on the subject
over the years! Mostly I advocate losing the thermometer -- as well as the
Tylenol -- and relying more on observations. Well, I suppose "lose" the
thermometer is a bit extreme...)

Shannon

Hello V.T.Yekkirala,

exaggerated reaction would not be harmful
with best wishes,
V.T.Yekkirala
****************

I am not sure how it goes contrary. Firstly , any aggravation that occurs
is from the remedy and not the disease state ( if we use Organon
principles). Now the child had a febrile increase. We know children can
handle fevers better than adults. The febriles such as measles etc better
suited to children. Ax an adult that kind of illness with fever can be
severly debilitating. We want a reaction from the remedy ( if using the 5th
Organon centessimal method) because then we know we are stronger than the
disease state. i.e. there will only be an aggravation if the artificial
disease state is stronger than the natural disease state and so it increases
the symptoms. We make the patient slighthly worse, but artificially so by
means of remedy. Once we are stronger than the natural disease we are going
to overcome the natural disease (two similar disease states cannot coexist
simultaneously etc - Organon stuff). We could argue that the stronger the
aggravation the more we overcome the disease state (by means of the effect
of the remedy on the vital force, not the vital force reaction - much like a
stronger magnet). But the stronger reaction comes at a price of causing more
disorder to the vital force and can weaken the patient. This ties up with
his ideas in chronic diseases about medicinal disease and about activation
of latent psora when dosing with mercury for syphylis.

So Sankaran himself said :
" We want the reaction. Her vitality may be too weak to
bear the reaction. That is the risk we have to take; the child may die.
But she is going to die anyway."

He wanted the reaction so that he knew the remedy was working. He knew it
was adversely affecting the vital force, but he weighed up the risks. One
could argue that using LM's would have been better but remember he was
dealing with a non responsive patient. The child couldn't have said " I am
feeling better in myself doctor". or " My head doesn't hurt etc."

he says:
"I had to select a remedy to meet this grave condition - from these very
scanty symptoms. No other characteristic symptoms were available."

So no characteristics to observe and watch. No way of knowing that the
patient was improving other than by watching the aggravations and the
subsequent changes that also happened which were part of the return to
health as the patient regained sensation.

With LM's you expect the aggravation at the end of cure, not the beginning.
So they would have been inappropriate in this case.

Also bear in mind he jumped up from 1M to CM. One could argue that he could
have tried 10M etc, but as he said, he couldn't wat. He decided to give the
CM and if that didn't aggravate, then probably the remedy was wrong. But he
knew there were risks. He didn't say " If I have aggravation thats good
cause my patient is "detoxing" or the "vital force is being activated to
heal the patient"

In fact if we look at the response, the reaction of the vital force as
convulsions etc are actually signs of return of sensation. They are not
signs of the disease state. They are occuring once the disease state of
Helleborus , which is about sensorial depression, is overcome, and then the
vital force can once again go to aph 9 which is where the nerve system has
sensation. Much like when your leg wakes up after you have been sitting on
it for a while.

What happens is the disease state is repelled and the vital force can
function healthily. Then there is still a remnant of disease state which
increases again and so a further dose is required etc until the disease
state is completely gone. This might depend on tissues being repaired,
neurotransmitters being formed etc. What Kent said about this is that when
the disease is not completely gone, you haven't yet got to the Esse of the
disease state, and so you must go higher (see his case of Sulphur in
Lectures on Philosophy". Perhaps Sankaran could have got better results by
going on to the MM's as Kent did. Who knows, bottom line is the child got
better. Good job in a difficult case.

Regards,
Paul

"Case
This is a case of viral encephalitis in a female child of 1½ years. I
got the following history.
The child was apparently normal when she developed vomiting and
diarrhoea (gastroenteritis), for which she was admitted to an allopathic
hospital where she was given intravenous fluids. Then she developed a
mild temperature and had one convulsion. After this convulsion, she
suddenly sunk into a stupor and became semiconscious. The pediatrician
said that the chances of the child's survival were bleak. She was almost
unconscious when I saw her and was responsive only to very deep pain
stimulus. If we pinched her very hard, she would just emit a slight
whine, and then go back to semiconsciousness. She had no convulsions
after the first one. Her temperature was subnormal at 97 ºF. They
brought her to our homoeopathic hospital with all kinds of tubes around
her and I think venesection had also been performed.
I had to select a remedy to meet this grave condition - from these very
scanty symptoms. No other characteristic symptoms were available. The
remedy I chose was Helleborus niger.....

So, we gave Helleborus 1M, a single dose. Now, what would happen? Let us
see what Kent says:
"I have seen children, after passing through a moderately acute but
rather passive first stage, lie in this stupid state, needing
Helleborus for weeks before they received it. When it was given, repair
sets in, not instantly, but gradually. The remedy acts slowly in these
slow, stubborn, stupid cases of brain and spinal trouble. Sometimes
there is no apparent change until the day after the remedy is
administered or even the next night, when there comes a sweat, a
diarrhoea, or vomiting - a reaction. They must not be interfered with,
no remedy must be given. They are signs of reaction. If the child has
vitality enough to recover, he will now recover."
Management of the case
This is like homoeopathic surgery. We are saying that this child is
bad. Her disease is bad. It has affected the brain. We are going to give
her the medicine. We want the reaction. Her vitality may be too weak to
bear the reaction. That is the risk we have to take; the child may die.
But she is going to die anyway. This is her only chance of recovery.
Kent says further:
"If the vomiting is stopped by any remedy that will stop it, the
Helleborus will be antidoted. Let the vomiting, or the diarrhoea or the
sweat alone, and it will pass away during the day. The child will become
warm and in a few days will return to consciousness - and then what will
take place? Just imagine these benumbed fingers and hands and limbs,
this benumbed skin everywhere. What would be the most natural thing to
develop as evidence to the rousing up of this stupid child?... Well,
that child's fingers will commence to tingle. As he comes back to his
normal nervous condition, the fingers commence to tingle, the nose and
ears tingle, and the child begins to scream and toss back and forth, and
roll about the bed. The neighbours will come in and say: "I would send
that doctor away unless he gives something to help that child", but just
sure as you do it, you will have a dead baby in twenty-four hours. That
child is getting well; let him alone. You will never be able to manage
one of these cases if you do not take the father into a room by himself
and tell him just how the case will proceed. Do not take the mother, do
not tell her a word about it, unless she is an unusual excellent mother,
because that is her child and she is sympathetic, and she will cry when
she ears that child's cry; she will lose her head and will insist upon
the father turning you out of doors. But if you take the father aside
beforehand and tell him what is going to happen, explain it to him so he
will see it for himself, and tell him that if this is not permitted to
go on, that if the remedy is interfered with, he will lose his child."
This is Kent's description as to what should happen after giving
Helleborus.
I gave Helleborus 1M, one dose, and waited for twenty-four hours, but
nothing happened. The child's condition was very critical, and I wanted
a reaction immediately; so, I gave Helleborus CM. I didn't want to wait
with 10 M and 50 M.
Within 1½ hours after giving Helleborus CM, her temperature went up to
103 ºF, and then to 105.2 ºF. This was her maximum temperature, and it
remained for twenty-four hours the first time. She had a kind of
convulsion along with this temperature, but after, the whole thing
subsided, her response to the pain stimulus was much, much better and
her level of consciousness had increased. This reaction stopped and so
we repeated the remedy in CM after two days, and within an hour of the
repeat, she started shrieking loudly and she kept on shrieking for
twelve to fourteen hours; the temperature also steadily rose and
remained the same for seventy-two hours. During the course of this
temperature, her level of consciousness kept on improving. Every time we
gave her a dose, the effect would last just a little longer than the
previous dose, and then it would subside totally. And after each such
rise and fall of temperature, her level of consciousness would just
slightly improve and the symptoms which are identified with Helleborus
started showing.....
Now, this stage improved even further, and she became totally conscious,
but she could not see and she could not hear. Slowly, her hearing came
back, and then we were left with this, that she was fully conscious -
she could hear, eat, sleep, cry, but she could not see.
Doubts about full recovery
We referred her to an ophtalmologist to see if there was something
wrong with her eyes, but he said that they were perfectly clear.
Everybody thought that encephalitis has left its mark; that she would
remain blind for the rest of her life. I myself had similar doubts.
What should I do now? Should I change the remedy? Then I read in Nash:

"Helleborus produces this dullness of the senses that the eyes are
normal, but he cannot see; and his ears are normal, but he cannot hear."

When I read this, I felt thrilled. I continued her on Helleborus
according to the indication. Whenever the response lagged, I gave her
another dose, and in this way she was treated.
I would go every two or three days to the hospital to see if the vision
had come back, and for quite some time, around two-three weeks, there
was no sign. Then one day, I took out my handkerchief (I would always do
this to check her vision) and waved it before her eyes and, for the
first time, she tried to grasp it. She could see something blurred.
Slowly and gradually her vision improved until it came back totally"

Dear Paul and Shannon,
I read this case with great interest. I lack experience and insight, but it seems like a case where the vital force has "fallen into a coma." Hell. was given to arouse the vital force. So it came back in a violent way, as the doctor expected. The child would die if this risky tactic were not taken. This is not a common case. It is a special case.

In more common fevers, the vital force is awake and evident. I have a case where the patient feels no pain in many areas where pain would be normal (a badly prolapsed uterus, softening gum with pockets around all the teeth, acting like a social door mat to people around her). I am wondering if these symptoms might not get painful before they get better. Like the above case, it is as if the vital force were in a coma.

Blessings,
Ellen Madono
snip.

So Sankaran himself said :
" We want the reaction. Her vitality may be too weak to
bear the reaction. That is the risk we have to take; the child may die.
But she is going to die anyway."

He wanted the reaction so that he knew the remedy was working. He knew it
was adversely affecting the vital force, but he weighed up the risks. One
could argue that using LM's would have been better but remember he was
dealing with a non responsive patient. The child couldn't have said " I am
feeling better in myself doctor". or " My head doesn't hurt etc."

he says:
"I had to select a remedy to meet this grave condition - from these very
scanty symptoms. No other characteristic symptoms were available."

So no characteristics to observe and watch. No way of knowing that the
patient was improving other than by watching the aggravations and the
subsequent changes that also happened which were part of the return to
health as the patient regained sensation.

With LM's you expect the aggravation at the end of cure, not the beginning.
So they would have been inappropriate in this case.

Also bear in mind he jumped up from 1M to CM. One could argue that he could
have tried 10M etc, but as he said, he couldn't wat. He decided to give the
CM and if that didn't aggravate, then probably the remedy was wrong. But he
knew there were risks. He didn't say " If I have aggravation thats good
cause my patient is "detoxing" or the "vital force is being activated to
heal the patient"

In fact if we look at the response, the reaction of the vital force as
convulsions etc are actually signs of return of sensation. They are not
signs of the disease state. They are occuring once the disease state of
Helleborus , which is about sensorial depression, is overcome, and then the
vital force can once again go to aph 9 which is where the nerve system has
sensation. Much like when your leg wakes up after you have been sitting on
it for a while.

What happens is the disease state is repelled and the vital force can
function healthily. Then there is still a remnant of disease state which
increases again and so a further dose is required etc until the disease
state is completely gone. This might depend on tissues being repaired,
neurotransmitters being formed etc. What Kent said about this is that when
the disease is not completely gone, you haven't yet got to the Esse of the
disease state, and so you must go higher (see his case of Sulphur in
Lectures on Philosophy". Perhaps Sankaran could have got better results by
going on to the MM's as Kent did. Who knows, bottom line is the child got
better. Good job in a difficult case.

Regards,
Paul

"Case
This is a case of viral encephalitis in a female child of 1½ years. I
got the following history.
The child was apparently normal when she developed vomiting and
diarrhoea (gastroenteritis), for which she was admitted to an allopathic
hospital where she was given intravenous fluids. Then she developed a
mild temperature and had one convulsion. After this convulsion, she
suddenly sunk into a stupor and became semiconscious. The pediatrician
said that the chances of the child's survival were bleak. She was almost
unconscious when I saw her and was responsive only to very deep pain
stimulus. If we pinched her very hard, she would just emit a slight
whine, and then go back to semiconsciousness. She had no convulsions
after the first one. Her temperature was subnormal at 97 ºF. They
brought her to our homoeopathic hospital with all kinds of tubes around
her and I think venesection had also been performed.
I had to select a remedy to meet this grave condition - from these very
scanty symptoms. No other characteristic symptoms were available. The
remedy I chose was Helleborus niger.....

So, we gave Helleborus 1M, a single dose. Now, what would happen? Let us
see what Kent says:
"I have seen children, after passing through a moderately acute but
rather passive first stage, lie in this stupid state, needing
Helleborus for weeks before they received it. When it was given, repair
sets in, not instantly, but gradually. The remedy acts slowly in these
slow, stubborn, stupid cases of brain and spinal trouble. Sometimes
there is no apparent change until the day after the remedy is
administered or even the next night, when there comes a sweat, a
diarrhoea, or vomiting - a reaction. They must not be interfered with,
no remedy must be given. They are signs of reaction. If the child has
vitality enough to recover, he will now recover."
Management of the case
This is like homoeopathic surgery. We are saying that this child is
bad. Her disease is bad. It has affected the brain. We are going to give
her the medicine. We want the reaction. Her vitality may be too weak to
bear the reaction. That is the risk we have to take; the child may die.
But she is going to die anyway. This is her only chance of recovery.
Kent says further:
"If the vomiting is stopped by any remedy that will stop it, the
Helleborus will be antidoted. Let the vomiting, or the diarrhoea or the
sweat alone, and it will pass away during the day. The child will become
warm and in a few days will return to consciousness - and then what will
take place? Just imagine these benumbed fingers and hands and limbs,
this benumbed skin everywhere. What would be the most natural thing to
develop as evidence to the rousing up of this stupid child?... Well,
that child's fingers will commence to tingle. As he comes back to his
normal nervous condition, the fingers commence to tingle, the nose and
ears tingle, and the child begins to scream and toss back and forth, and
roll about the bed. The neighbours will come in and say: "I would send
that doctor away unless he gives something to help that child", but just
sure as you do it, you will have a dead baby in twenty-four hours. That
child is getting well; let him alone. You will never be able to manage
one of these cases if you do not take the father into a room by himself
and tell him just how the case will proceed. Do not take the mother, do
not tell her a word about it, unless she is an unusual excellent mother,
because that is her child and she is sympathetic, and she will cry when
she ears that child's cry; she will lose her head and will insist upon
the father turning you out of doors. But if you take the father aside
beforehand and tell him what is going to happen, explain it to him so he
will see it for himself, and tell him that if this is not permitted to
go on, that if the remedy is interfered with, he will lose his child."
This is Kent's description as to what should happen after giving
Helleborus.
I gave Helleborus 1M, one dose, and waited for twenty-four hours, but
nothing happened. The child's condition was very critical, and I wanted
a reaction immediately; so, I gave Helleborus CM. I didn't want to wait
with 10 M and 50 M.
Within 1½ hours after giving Helleborus CM, her temperature went up to
103 ºF, and then to 105.2 ºF. This was her maximum temperature, and it
remained for twenty-four hours the first time. She had a kind of
convulsion along with this temperature, but after, the whole thing
subsided, her response to the pain stimulus was much, much better and
her level of consciousness had increased. This reaction stopped and so
we repeated the remedy in CM after two days, and within an hour of the
repeat, she started shrieking loudly and she kept on shrieking for
twelve to fourteen hours; the temperature also steadily rose and
remained the same for seventy-two hours. During the course of this
temperature, her level of consciousness kept on improving. Every time we
gave her a dose, the effect would last just a little longer than the
previous dose, and then it would subside totally. And after each such
rise and fall of temperature, her level of consciousness would just
slightly improve and the symptoms which are identified with Helleborus
started showing.....
Now, this stage improved even further, and she became totally conscious,
but she could not see and she could not hear. Slowly, her hearing came
back, and then we were left with this, that she was fully conscious -
she could hear, eat, sleep, cry, but she could not see.
Doubts about full recovery
We referred her to an ophtalmologist to see if there was something
wrong with her eyes, but he said that they were perfectly clear.
Everybody thought that encephalitis has left its mark; that she would
remain blind for the rest of her life. I myself had similar doubts.
What should I do now? Should I change the remedy? Then I read in Nash:

"Helleborus produces this dullness of the senses that the eyes are
normal, but he cannot see; and his ears are normal, but he cannot hear."

When I read this, I felt thrilled. I continued her on Helleborus
according to the indication. Whenever the response lagged, I gave her
another dose, and in this way she was treated.
I would go every two or three days to the hospital to see if the vision
had come back, and for quite some time, around two-three weeks, there
was no sign. Then one day, I took out my handkerchief (I would always do
this to check her vision) and waved it before her eyes and, for the
first time, she tried to grasp it. She could see something blurred.
Slowly and gradually her vision improved until it came back totally"

snip

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

At 7:48 AM -0500 5/2/04, Bob&Shannon wrote:
Read Hahnemann. IF the vital force was able to cure our illnesses, we
would never get sick. The vital force is reactive, and it does not
think or reason.
Kent and Vithoulkas got it wrong in a big way, and since most of our
current prescribers come FROM those two-- they also get it wrong.

Paul had a good reply to this one.

JW

Well, I'll keep mulling over this, as arguing with Hahnemann is not a good
position, LOL! But, if the VF *isn't* able to cure our illnesses, they why
do we usually get well?

Shannon
on 5/3/04 11:29 AM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

Dear Shannon - stanza 12. "It is the morbidly affected vital force/energy
alone that produces diseases, so that the morbid phenomena perceptible to
our sense express at the same time all the internal change, that is to say,
the whole morbid derangement of the internal dynamis; in a word, they reveal
the whole disease; consequently also, the disappearance under treatment of
all the morbid phenomena and of all the morbid alterations that differ from
the healthy vital operations, certainly affects and necessarily implies the
restoration of the integrity of the vital force and, therefore, the
recovered health of the whole organism."

That is, the vital force is a SIGNIFIER of both disease and relative health.

If someone gets well, without treatment then they have good recovery status
and are probably on an admirable healthy plane.

best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 3/5/04 6:19 PM, Bob&Shannon at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

Well, I'll keep mulling over this, as arguing with Hahnemann is not a good
position, LOL! But, if the VF *isn't* able to cure our illnesses, they why
do we usually get well?

Shannon
on 5/3/04 11:29 AM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Shannon,

good
why

We get over a cold, for example, because it is largely a self-limiting kind
of illness if we are "healthy". (7 days with/one week without Rx). It may
be that the virus weakens with each replication, as happens when you make
yogurt and re-seed from the previous culture. After a few generations you
need to start with fresh acidophillus.

It also depends on the nature of our chronic disease state. If your CD is
destined to the kind of pathology that develops in arthritis for example, it
might be that your VF can still react to the viral invader and knock it out.
But if your CD is perhaps destined to respiratory problems, then you might
develop the complications. Aph 31 is about susceptibility.

§ 31
The inimical forces, partly psychical, partly physical, to which our
terrestrial existence is exposed, which are termed morbific noxious agents,
do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man
unconditionally1; but we are made ill by them only when our organism is
sufficiently disposed and susceptible to attack of the morbific cause that
may be present, and to be altered in its health, deranged and made to
undergo abnormal sensations and functions - hence they do not produce
disease in every one nor at all times.

****************

So some people get a cold, others end up with pneumonia. The "inner disease
state" is a dynamic state, not just a condition such as bronchitis or
arthritis, so you have took look at the patient's state dynamically. The
virus is a "morbific noxious agent" and we are susceptible each in our own
way.

Regards,
Paul

on 5/3/04 12:56 PM, Anthony G at Homoeopathy@webtv.net wrote:
Bob&Shannon wrote:
***************** Hi Shannon,

VF SACRIFICE
Perhaps a TCM prac. on the list can say whether the organismal VF sacrifices
"jing" (water element or other difficult to replace reserves) when it mounts a
(difficult) or protracted effort at homeostasis to ANY "challenge". If so, it
may or may not be a sacrifice that is very obvious, but the etiological rubrics
(ailments from.... "garden variety" acute of your choice) show that something
happened in many constitutions, whether it was recognized as a major effect or
not at the time. The LEVEL of "sacrifice" is certainly one which is
variable--and quite difficult to measure unless it is obvious (eg. the
paralytic effects of polio as opposed to a "cold" that passes by). Due to the
improved hygiene and allopathic interventions of the industrialized countries,
we do not have the same challenges presented that existed here in previous
centuries--and still exist in many of our neighbors' countries; challenges
which are frequently fatal if not aided by intervention (either interfering via
allopathy or annihilating with homeopathy). Even measles (a belittled malady
in the industrialized world) has the following alleged mortality worldwide:

======
"...GENEVA (Reuters) Apr 27 - The number of people, mostly children,
killed by measles each year dropped by 30 percent over three years,
putting the world on track for a targeted 50-percent fall by 2005,
United Nations agencies said Tuesday.

The 30-percent fall to 610,000 deaths was achieved between 1999 and
2002, the latest year for which figures are available. Africa
registered the strongest improvement with a 35-percent reduction.

In all, 311,000 people died in Africa, 196,000 in southeast Asia and
70,000 in the east Mediterranean area in 2002...." (from a post to Homeolist
4/28/04)
======

Pathogenocidal methods can trip up the process of an acute disease via
destruction of microbes, and represent a back-up system of treatment which
saves the life, but confers no other benefit, and may leave effects from an
uncompleted process. Epidemic diseases are often emblematic of regional
susceptibility in conjunction with changes in the pathogenetic "weather" of the
area; an artifact of the patterns of non-physical forces active both in and
upon the earth itself. They are new or foreign challenges in many cases (a
mutated strain of "challenge"). They are thus more than merely an "individual"
phenomenon, though each individual susceptibility is impacted and must react if
exposed. More on this is discussed below (what Dr. Hamer's empirically
derived system MAY be able to contribute to a more complete understanding of
the nature of the human/pathogen relations in acute epidemic disease. Acute
epidemic disease is at some level a special case of chronic illness, as it
involves susceptibility; and acute susceptibility is, at some level, a subset
of chronic susceptibility, although the relations there are not very clear (at
least to me). The effectiveness of prophylaxis via isopathics or homeopathic
"specifics"-- versus chronic treatment was one of the topics in a previous
discussion of
prophylaxis).

DISEASE; AND HEALING ATTEMPTS AT HOMEOSTASIS; AS SYNONYMOUS CONCEPTS
I agree with Darla's assessment; any symptoms expressed by an organism are
representative of "friction" in the cybernetic vital force's attempt to
maintain homeostasis; and thus represent a healing reaction, however
idiosyncratic. Such a healing reaction can indeed be fatal, maiming, or
benign, as pointed out by several respondents. Paul's point is well taken
IMO about the mistake of ascribing benevolence teleologically to the vital
force. We are each left here inside our own "HAL 9000" and it takes us on a
(more or less) "scripted" journey that we (the incarnated consciousness) must
decode in order to avert manifested and limiting circumstances (eg know thy
curriculum, know thy remedy). In the end, the program is coded for aging and
death regardless of how bumpy the journey.
HAMER
Hamer's New Medicine, as much as I have been able to glean so far, is a major
development in medicine. I urge study of the links that Ati has passed on or
that require a mere search. Through study of 31,000 cancer cases, Hamer
appears to have accomplished at least the following:

--confirmed psychosomatic ("mind-body" medicine) with overwhelming empirical
data
--correlated etiological events with specific brain loci (via CT scan data) and
types of manifested pathological lesions which follow
--mapped a connection between embryological germ layer pathology and thematic
etiological factors (this would be very interesting to attempt to correlate
with Dr. Vijakar's (sp) correlations with embryology)
--determined the STAGES of idiosyncratic healing responses
--shown that "pathogens" (fungi, bacteria, viruses) that act as opportunists in
chronic disease can be viewed as symbiotic ancillary parts of the immune system
on the physical level--opportunists not potentially "harmful" (and not
primarily causal, as is in agreement with homeopathic philosophy) but part of
an attempt to remove the artifacts of a response to a previous shock to the
life of the organism. What "benefit" EPIDEMIC opportunist pathogens are
conferring is not yet clear to me, or if Hamer has addressed that (he has
mapped acute disease on the brain and in the body at least to some extent, but
so far the extent is not clear as the only mappings available online are in
german, not english and translation is painstaking).

This last item may contain the answer to Shannon's question about developmental
milestones in children that may have been observed after self-limiting febrile
diseases of childhood of the "garden variety" which are not fatal in countries
with sanitation, nutrition, and other measures. (Shannon do you have specific
evidence or studies about this?). I cannot say what that answer is at my
current level of understanding of Hamer's revelations. But there is a hint in
Hamer's material that supports the notion that some of these diseases may be
ingrained in human culture (for at least the past couple of thousand years),
and thus (possibly) be evolutionarily/symbiotically linked with childhood
development. This is an interesting area of inquiry.
Here is a (really simplistic) overview of the Hamer system from one of the
websites one can visit:

======
Dr. Hamer's GERMAN NEW MEDICINE® provides us with illuminating explanations
about the origin, development and healing of both
physical and mental disorders. Dr. Hamer discovered that every disease
originates with a conflict shock that catches us completely off guard. At the
moment the unexpected trauma occurs, the shock strikes a specific area in the
brain causing a lesion that is clearly visible on a brain scan as a set of
sharp concentric rings. With the impact the affected brain cells communicate
the disturbance to the corresponding body cells resulting in a specific
disease development. Dr. Hamer calls his findings “The Five Biological Laws of
the New Medicine” since his research is in full accordance with
the natural laws of embryology and evolutionary logic. The New Medicine
presents a comprehensive system that allows us to understand what type
of conflict causes the onset of a particular disease, how the disease manifests
itself in the conflict active phase, what can be expected in the healing
phase, and how all the developments are connected to the brain, verifiable with
a brain scan.
======

Apparently confirmation of the accuracy of his correlations are coming in from
around the world.
What Hamer DOES NOT address is original susceptibility. His therapeutics
(which have at least a significant enhanced survivability rate in cancer) is
aimed at resolving the emotional confict of identified etiologies. In his
system, these etiologies are (apparently) seen as the only "causes"-- (or at
least the only causes he chooses to attempt to address in order to resolve the
life-threatening disease). The inherited weaknesses behind the manifestations
from the shock are not addressed. So this system is not (at least outwardly)
interlocked with homeopathic philosophy on the level of susceptibility. It is
however, linked markedly so with homeopathic experience on the level of
significance of etiology, and connection of emotions with physical
manifestation. It is in the latter area where clues can be derived which can
help us understand the nature of disease and healing; and complement
Hahnemann's (and descendants) theory of Chronic Diseases.

Moreover, the tie between manifested disease and miasmatic weakness may also be
possible to elucidate, using the large data set his research and correlations
represent.

One could draw a conclusion that the "coats" of non-physical bodies
(culminating in the physical body) we WEAR are a defense mechanism which allows
our indwelling consciousness to work and "play" in the fields of the dualistic
world without having to "think" most of the time about "defense" against
invisible (nonphysical or microscopic) morbific influences. (The latter is
merely a paraphrase of aphorism 9). The VF is equivalent to at least the
"etheric double" of theosophy, which would correlate with at least the organ
meridian/central vessels/strange flows of TCM (at least a correlation between
organ meridians of the hand and the etheric body have been proven via Kirlian
photography). The cybernetic VF reacts according to its "design" and evolved
and inherited abilities AUTOMATICALLY.

But the coats are flawed in variable and individualized ways (due to originally
infectious, and reproductively transmissible coding "glitches" which Hahnemann
pioneered the identification of and called "miasms".) So the VF inevitably
sputters at something, and we develop problems which interfere such that WE
MUST think about their resolution. Homeopathy if chosen may provide an answer,
on a chronic level, AT BEST currently some 60% of the time (and on an acute
level to a degree discussed with some evidence presented in the previous
discussion of prophylaxis and epidemic simillimi).

As life gives no guarantees, probably neither do the responses of the VF as to
the survivability of the adventure in the world of tension and "knowledge of
good and evil". Humans sometimes have difficulty transferring what happens to
others as being part of what can also apply to ourselves. The "charmed" nature
of life is a hypothesis eventually and definitively shaken when fate knocks on
one's own door.
Shannon wrote:
And, if it's not the VF that makes the "choice" of sacrificing part of the
organism in exchange for its recovery, then what *has* made that choice (or
reaction or whatever)? I'm not being obstructive strictly for the fun of
it; this argument is one I've really never understood.
What fate takes from us is directly related to our susceptibility to it. The
forcing functions for that are part of a discussion which would go off-topic
into medical astrological inference. IMO it is very much as Paul described:
almost like a computer program. A certain amount of free will is involved (or
at least the illusion thereof); but ones susceptibilities are arbited by one's
consciousness (choices/judgement); one's inherited constitution (includes
miasmatically tainted dynamis and all nonphysical overlays such as the
emotional body)); and the window of exposure to non-newtonian forces from
orbiting bodies--defined by time of conception and birth.

Best,
Andy
=============

Darla's Post
Subject:
[H] Healing Process (was Prostate CA information requested)
Date:
Mon, 3 May 2004 15:56:40 -0400
From:
"Kitsnk9s"

Regarding this discussion, isn't the danger of the healing process by
the body/VF what Hahnemann was referring to in Aphorism 22, FN 22
(Organon, O'Reilly ed) when he said:

"Once the life force has fallen ill due to malignities, it can only
express its mistunement by means of the disturbance of the organism's
healthy course of life and by feelings of suffering whereby it called
upon the intelligent physician for help. If help does not appear, then
it strives to save itself by intensifying the sufferings - primarily
however, by violent evacuations. This often involves tremendous
sacrifice, sometimes the sacrifice of life itself."

So, in other words, aren't all dis-eases -- leukemia, cancer, etc. --
"healing" processes, at least from the body's perspective as it tries to
heal itself, whether that "healing" might prove to be fatal if left
untreated?

My apologies if I'm totally off-base or seeing this too simplistically
(or totally misunderstanding the discussion! As perhaps it is over my
head). As a new student, I feel this is a principle important for me to
understand.

Darla
Student, British Institute of Homeopathy

At 12:19 PM -0500 5/3/04, Bob&Shannon wrote:

It WAS answered by others.
We get well because we are, generally, healthy.
The same "illness" could kill someone who has compromised vitality.
Jeremy Sherr once described it as "the roly-poly" factor--
referencing one of those "roly-poly" dolls that will come upright
when pushed over.
The RPfactor is measured by how well you come right after a blow. It
would depend, of course, on how strong the blow is felt.
The death of a friend can be taken in stride (with some grief) by
some, and will completely destroy someone else-- perhaps for years.

It all has to do with susceptibility.

JW

Hi Paul,
You wrote:

"One could argue that using LM's would have been better but remember he
was
dealing with a non responsive patient. The child couldn't have said " I
am
feeling better in myself doctor". or " My head doesn't hurt etc."

he says:
"I had to select a remedy to meet this grave condition - from these very
scanty symptoms. No other characteristic symptoms were available."

So no characteristics to observe and watch. No way of knowing that the
patient was improving other than by watching the aggravations and the
subsequent changes that also happened which were part of the return to
health as the patient regained sensation.

With LM's you expect the aggravation at the end of cure, not the
beginning.
So they would have been inappropriate in this case."
regards,
V.T.Yekkirala