Minutus

Dear Andrew

You stated: "It's false to say homeopathy treats only the individual and not the disease."

It all depends what you mean by disease?

You then continued to correctly state that "It treats the disease state as it manifests in the individual."

Homeopathy treats the dis-eased state - ABSOLUTELY.

But it does not treat chickenpox per se. It treats the symptoms that cause dis-ease in someone we say suffers from chickenpox. In effect the names of diseases are a convenient reference to a set of symptoms commonly seen at various times. Effectively they are no different to a syndrome! The chickenpox virus is still out there and not affected. In treating our patients we have made them less susceptible to that disease. It allows one to live in greater harmony with all other creatures whether they be virus, bacteria, fungus, pollen or whatever.

If Hom treated the 'disease' (as allopathy pretends to), then if we have 10 kids all diagnosed to be suffering from 'chickenpox', we would give them all the same remedy. But hom practice and philosophy has shown that it is unlikely that they all would require the same rx. Even in epidemics, the homeopath needs to individualise the remedy for the patient. That is why in an epidemic you do not have just one applicable remedy - but a few remedies are applicable and through the recognition of the general signs of the disease and the 'peculiarities of the pt, the correct rx is selected with miraculous results.

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

well said each. I might suggest that it is of value to differentiate between a disease and a disharmony. A disease is a 'state' of being, while a disharmony is a circumstance resulting from a contrast of two or more elements.

Finrod wrote:

two meanings apply,
1. as per normal understanding, disease with their common pathological
symptoms
2. the more refined homepathic understanding which is the collection of
symptoms arising from the noxious disturbance, these symptoms being both
pathological and non-pathological.

the second includes the first, it doesn't contradict it. Sometimes,
especially in epidemic illness, there are no discernible non-pathological
symptoms. We can speculate that the non-pathological symptoms arise as a
consequence of the innate disposition or constitution of the patient, but
that remains beyond our capacities to analyse. We do not treat this, and
we certainly do treat the disease energy, but as it has specifically
manifested in the individual.

10 kids all diagnosed to be suffering from 'chickenpox', we would give them
all the same remedy. But hom practice and philosophy has shown that it is
unlikely that they all would require the same rx.

they may, and they may not. Chickenpox certainly exists, as does anthrax,
cholera etc. they are not a syndrome like say insulin-resistance. However,
the main point is this: when we say individuate, this does not mean the
individual per se, as in the nature and constitution of the patient, but the
individual or specific manifestation of the illness. So not a textbook case
of chickenpox, but the actual case that is in front of you.

Andrew