Page 1 of 1

Susceptibility

Posted: Sat May 15, 2004 10:37 pm
by H. Balasubramanian
According to Homoeopathy the cause of diseases is susceptibility of the individual. Each person is susceptible to certain allergens, certain thermic condition and certain diseases. The person’s susceptibility is determined by his constitution and his miasms. In turn the constitution and miasm is influenced by his genetic factors. In his lifetime he may inherit some miasm due to his environment and his life style. A homoeopath, while taking the case of a patient, notes the susceptibility of the patient to different reasons.
Similarly, the patient is susceptible to toxic substances, which produce pathological symptoms in a healthy person. After homoeopathic proving, we consider the toxic substances, as remedy. These toxic substances, when given as remedy in homoeopathic potency, it cures the patient. Therefore, the patient is susceptible to certain potency of the homoeopathic remedy.
The patient’s susceptibility to allergens, thermal conditions and diseases make him sick. His susceptibility to homoeopathic remedy in certain potency cures him.
On the other hand the homoeopathic remedies are susceptible to certain allergens, thermal conditions and diseases. Each remedy’s susceptibility is recoded in the homoeopathic Materia Medica. Someone may argue that it was not remedy’s susceptibility, but only produces symptoms on the healthy person. My understanding is that it is remedy’s susceptibility, which is manifested on the healthy during proving. During proving all the symptoms are not produced one person. Therefore, the individual provers constitution and miasms varies and accordingly the remedy produces differently on each prover. Symptoms produced on majority of provers are considered and ranked most.
The duty of the homoeopath is to first find the susceptibility of the patients in total. This totality is not arithmetic total. Then the homoeopath has to find the remedy, which is having similar totality. Then to find which potency the patient is susceptible to. Then, Administer the remedy in required posology.
The aim of the homoeopathic treatment is not to remove the susceptibility, but only to modify the susceptibility of the patient to make him healthy. The patient’s susceptibility to remedy and to homoeopathic potency is essential for his healthy life. Hence it is not our intention to remove the entire susceptibility.
For some homoeopaths the word disease is anathema. Normally it is repeatedly said that homoeopaths cure the person and not the disease. Are we not curing the disease? Someone may correct the quote as Treat the person and not the disease? Are we not treating the disease?

Recently I met my Guru (Teacher) S.P. KOPIKKAR, who is aged 80 plus and even now practising homoeopathy for more than 60 years. He is a graduate from Calcutta Homoeopathic College and gold medallist in those days. His uncle was a homoeopath and master in Allen Keynotes.
I am giving you the lengthy introduction lest you may pass hasty remark that he is not a classical homoeopath, when I convey to you that he said, “ don’t say homeopathy is not curing the diseases. Bacteria are not the cause of the diseases”. Then the patient would not have faith in your treatment.
Let us see what the disease name means. Disease name denote a group of COMMON symptoms observed in a number patients at a time. The name connotes either the Doctor, who first observed or the name of the bacteria or virus causing the symptoms. Here we have to highlight in this process the UNCOMMON SYMPTOMS not observed.
As I told about the remedies produce symptoms differently on different provers as per the constitution and miasms of the prover. Similarly same disease produces different uncommon symptoms on different patients. COMMON symptoms of the disease may be present in all the patients.
As we go by the totality of symptoms of the patient, we have to take common and uncommon symptoms of the patient. As I already told, the name denotes only the common symptoms of the disease. When we consider the totality, the name is irrelevant to the given patient.
Those, who treat the patient as per name of the disease, after taking the case, find the disease, which presented those symptoms as in the case sheet. Then they plan the treatment plan and prescribe the medicine advocated by pharmaceutical industry for that particular disease.
So the process is: Group of symptoms in the patient ® comparing with the disease symptoms ® Prescribing medicines for the disease.
In homoeopathy the process is: Total symptoms of the patient ® comparing with the symptoms of the remedy ® prescribing that remedy as per protocol.
You may find that the middle stage omitted in Homeopathy. We go straight from patient’s symptoms to remedy symptoms. Therefore, the remedy name is irrelevant to our homoeopathic prescription. Only for prescription! To jump to the conclusion that disease name is irrelevant to a Homoeopath and the remedy name is irrelevant to the patient is logically fallacious.
Modern patient through media is aware of the diseases and causing bacteria and viruses. The patient is only and fully conscious of that. Tell him that we cure only the person and not the diseases, he will logically conclude that homoeopathy would only clear his symptoms and could not cure the diseases or its’ causation. I.e. the bacteria or virus. Only anti-bacteria can remove those. I am not saying it. The patient will believe like that.
Hence, the contemporary homoeopath should not be ignorant of or indifferent to disease and bacteria/virus. But for prescription he must consider the totality of symptoms for successful cure in homoeopathy.
In therapeutics there are two words: CARE, CURE.

In Care A for Allopathy is there.

In Cure U for you (homoeopaths) are present.
With this idea in my mind, I am studying the remedy to its susceptibility to particular organs, allergens, thermal conditions and diseases. That is to say the susceptibility of the remedy. I am starting with Aconite.
It is lengthy. Minutus digest wouldn’t accept attachments. Therefore, I can send to individual request when they are ready
P.S: Those who are replying or commenting on this letter, kindly don’t appendice the entire letter. Please quote only the relevant portions.
BE HAPPY AND MAKE OTHERS HAPPY.

With best wishes,
H.B.
from India

visit: http://education.vsnl.com/susceptibilit ... doctor/com
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

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

Re: Susceptibility

Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 10:08 pm
by Ellen Madono
Dear Dr. Balasubramanian,

I am interested in what you have to say about Aconite etc., By the way, your website address does not come up.

Thank-you,
Ellen Madono

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

Re: Susceptibility

Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 9:25 am
by H. Balasubramanian
Dear Krisnamoorthy,

Thank you very much for your response to my mail to minutus.

I have great respect for you as an experienced, well educated and successful Homoeopath along with so many systems that you preach and practice.
I have no disagreement with what you wrote. There is no argument.
You wrote: >>Without meaning any offence, I would point out that if he can quote cured cases stating as to how he cured (method of selection etc.) it would be useful to many.
Agreed. In my message end I mentioned about the MM compilation that I am doing and told that it would be sent to individuals on request. As it is long and can’t be send to the group. In that article on Aconite (to start with) I am analysing the cured cases with Aconite by our Masters, Past and present including you. Other remedies will follow it. I am having cured cases by different great prescribers.
You have sent me free your publications. In that your cases are there. The same you have sent to the list, that also I downloaded and keeping in my files. You may not deny that for the practice of Homoeopathy the Knowledge of inheritance, miasm etc. etc. is essential along with Boericke, Kent, Hering, Lilienthal.
In the above also you are quoting Knerr and Lilienthal. Can’t we quote the contemporary? Can’t I quote your cases in analysing a remedy?
You and many others like you doing that. Publish your success stories. The leader in that field is Dr. Burnett. International VIPs Rajan, Vithoulka, Jan Shelton, Prafull Vijayakar, Rajesh shah, Verspoor, Shegal and will Tyler (to quote a few) Publish books and conduct seminar to teach how to select a remedy. In India you are well known advocator of Batch Flower Remedies. I am not interested in argument about their approach. As you are quoting your RUPS approach, they have their own. I attended their seminars.
Yes true. A few cases came to me also. Because of that I don’t feel that I am more efficient than Dr. SPK. From Hahnemann no Homoeopath is 100% successful. If there is one, then there will be so much rush as for Thirupathi Dharshan. You are practising Homoeopathy for more than 30 years to my knowledge. You have published less than 100 cured cases. Are you successful only in these cases? It is equally applicable to other publishers also.
He gives me a patient hearing. He has his own method of prescribing successfully for more than 60 years. It doesn’t mean that he has to adopt your method. As you reported your cases to him, many others report that he hears. When you cured the case, what more we can comment. We have to store it to our memory.
When I suggested him to publish his cured cases, he said better you learn and practice the method that you prefer. He said Hahnemann has not published his cases.
Let me quote Hahnemann:

The request of some friends, halting half-way on the road to this method of treatment, to detail some examples of this treatment, is difficult to comply with, and no great advantage can attend a compliance with it. Every cured case of disease shows only how that case has been treated. The internal process of the treatment depends always on those principles which are already known, and they cannot be rendered concrete and definitely fixed for each individual case, now can they become at all more distinct from the history of a single cure than they previously were when these principles were enunciated. Every case of non-miasmatic disease is peculiar and special, and it is the special in it that distinguishes it from every other case, that pertains to it alone, but that cannot serve as a guide to the treatment of other cases. Now if it is wished to describe a complicated case of disease consisting of many symptoms, in such a pragmatical manner that the reasons that influence us in the
choice of the remedy shall be clearly revealed shall be clearly revealed, this demands details laborious at once for the recorder and for the reader.
You may ask >> Why not we discuss matters like the above instead of quoting Dr. Hahnemann etc. etc. To what use?
To conclude: I have highest regard for your knowledge and experience. Whenever I see your signature I read the mail seriously as I find it informative and educative.
BE HAPPY AND MAKE OTHERS HAPPY.

With best wishes,
H.B.
from India

visit: http://education.vsnl.com/susceptibilit ... doctor/com
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

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