Minutus

Has it ever been discussed on here how people manage to produce
cases, often more than one, of so many very unusual remedies? I have been
in very busy practice for over 20 years and would be unable to present a
cured case of Dulcamara, Cimicifuga, Rhus venenata, Crocus, Kali mur, Ferrum
phos, Mag sulph, Muriatic acid, Cenchris, Vespa, Asteria rubens to name a
very few. Not even a really convinscing case of Ant crud or Ambra grisea.
yet colleagues, may who have less experiencethan me continually roll
out cases of remedies we hadnt even heard of until 7 or 8 years ago. Whats
this all about? People prove a remedy like earthworm or something and then
present 3 cases of it. Actually after 22 years Im not sure I would find a
true Aconite case in my files.

===============
((( Hi, Robin. I did not have time to respond earlier; since Steve W. has
reintroduced the question I have a few thoughts. I consider this an
important topic, because people often define what they consider the scope
and efficacy of homeopathy to be; and materia medica limitations; etc. as
their OWN EXPERIENCE. So your asking the question indicates a recognition
of a type of persanal bias--which we all have because of what we attract as
our life curriculum, and who is "like" us, and thus is "attracted" to us as
a client, which in turn may for some people focus on a certain class of rx.

Astrological inference is the obvious field to point to in trying to
analyze the broadness of the spectrum of ones nature as an attractor.
Indeed, some people have a very focussed attractive scope, others wider.
My hypothesis on your question has been that this bias has several possible
aspects, the first of which is the scope of ones "envelope" as an
"attractor". Reich posited that the world of attracted phenomenon operated
on "LIKE ATTRACTS LIKE", so the nature of the prescriber is the first bias
that one will see in the population one treats. The nature of the
prescriber attracts the nature of the client.

1. Nature of the prescriber as an "ATTRACTOR". It was once remarked that
Sehgal claimed that 40% of all clients respond to Belladonna as a main
remedy, because those were the statistics from his practice. This type of
conclusion is more than any possible skew of the nature of the local
population he treated; and probably more than a systematic difference in
perception of cases (though that is a strong possibility here, as Sehgal had
a unique and valuable way of perceiving cases).

My hypothesis on this phenomenon of such strongly practitioner-dependent
skewing has been that we attract a certain type of client JUST as we attract
a certain type of life curriculum (and this gets into astrological
inference). This is one of the factors that sets up a situation like the
blind (wo)men looking at the same elephant. The blind one attracting one
set of people and prescribing successfully for them concludes that the whole
elephant is like the trunk (that homeopathy works only one way, and that
they see the entire spectrum of human types, and thus that they have the
whole "enchilada". Another practitioner sees both homeopathy and materia
medica a different way, because they attract a whole different population
needing a different type of treatment (e.g. psychological and life
curriculum versus, say, pediatric infectious diseases or mostly cancer
cases, etc--though to some extent of course, we are always interfacing in
life curricula.

Some homeopaths claim we have all we need just looking at symptoms--and have
very successful practices----but they do not consider that they DO NOT
attract the whole bell curve of humanity, but a segment of humanity to whom
they are attuned, (or their practice is not successful). Some homeopaths
conclude that they can treat everyone using 125 rx in Boenninghausens
TPB--and their experience is borne out by their apparent success (chicken or
egg?). Others find the materia medica woefully inadequate, seeing the
failures and postulating what the whole bell curve of remedy types must look
like, and how to match it--and consequently attract the whole bell curve.

People who do provings almost always have at least one curative response in
the proving cohort--evidence of attractors at work far beyond "chance". And
those same practitioners that "attracted" the substance they proved into
their life then actually have CLIENTS that show up needing that NEW remedy
(not just due to bias). So this is further evidence that there is LIKE
ATTRACTS LIKE operating to create the population that we treat, either by
our philosophy (posited stance), or our unconscious (astrologically
discernible) attractive tendencies.

2. A second factor could be termed MODE OF PERCEPTION. WHAT is one disposed
to perceive in a client?
==METHODS of perception (e.g. by example--paragraph 153 symptoms as guides;
Boenninghausens hexameter and CLAMS totality; Sankaran's vital sensation
(psychosomatic totality); Scholten's mineral and thus stage/series based
totality (whether the rx be mineral, animal, plant, nosode). Use of
taxonomic/stage of experience/psychological models and type of casetaking
(aggressive or laissez-faire, etc). Use of the panoply of different methods
of finding a totality on which to prescribe. IMO Sankaran and Scholten
systems, for example will provide another context and perspective on ANY
case. So the way to perceive a case will be a factor in the scope of
materia medica used.

AND (just as importantly for our medicinal healing system) what is the
practitioner's DATABASE:

===PICTURES OF MATERIA MEDICA --the SCOPE of materia medica database that
the practitioner has present and in mind via constant reading and
experience. This will be the background field ---the CONTEXT of receiving
the case. We use a comparative system--the similarity between client
totality or subtotality WITH the attributes of medicines is the primary
criterion. This similitude determines the efficacy of annihilation of the
miasmatic complex behind a given pattern of beingness/pathology in a client.

The more the BREADTH of actual medicines in our mental database, the more of
a chance of a "hit" TO that database upon hearing a suite of symptoms or
emphasis, or even turn of phrase. A homeopath continuously educating
themselves in materia medica will be reminded of candidate avenues of
analysis or stages of the periodic chart, or keynotes/peculiars, or the
importance of an modality, etc etc-- by hits to what they have already in
mind as "pictures". Repertory, or inferential methods (eg Sankaran plants
method) are superb (and for many essential) tools. But remedy candidacy is
often limited by what we have already studied.

Also a factor in our materia medica database is the amount of bias in what
we learned about remedies. In the example of aconite, many of us have been
so ingrained that acon is only a flashing and ephemeral acute remedy that we
dont necessarily think about etiology of fright being the only factor in an
otherwise complex chronic case, and thus we may miss the remedy. We all
must be careful not to typecast remedies too heavily..

PERCEPTION is less of a factor than ATTRACTOR nature in what PART of the
bell curve of clients that one attracts, and how MUCH of the bell curve, I
am positing. But both 1 and 2 above shape how one views both what
homeopathy is, how complete it is as a medicinal system, and how much of the
materia medica we use. Our views are inexorably BIASED, just like the
elephant viewers in that well known parable.
3. Another factor is our gauge of "success" in treatment. Very few
homeopaths know about, let alone use-- a RELIABLE system of confirming a
chronic medicine before it is given, and we use the client as a testbed and
waste their time and money far too often. We could be more CERTAIN more of
the time that we have given an OPTIMAL remedy (in a CHRONIC case--acute
cases are more pointed and result more demonstrable and statistically valid,
though can be just as challenging, of course). As I have written about
before, those that do use a reliable objective confirmatory (best example,
biolumanetic photography) find just how much our "certainty" itself is
biased. If we think we are being optimally successful and have reached the
limits of homeopathy but have no way to gauge the similitude of a remedy
other than semiology--then we remain more an art than a science. There will
always be an art to homeopathy--but we do not USE reliable independent
gauges of simillitude, and thus limit ourselves to full understanding of
what the RESULT means in the followup. Example from Kieran Linnane of the
London Clinic that uses biolumanetics (confirmatory tech costing $17K and
having some 6 years of experience in their clinic):

========
"...We have, of course, given polycrests in our clinic
but these prescriptions do not constitute the majority of our
prescriptions. For instance, we have given Pulsatilla literally twice
over the last 3 years. This is not because we have not tested it. It
is just that the remedy often refuses to yield clarity even in those
cases where one would swear blind that this was a "Pulsatilla case."
I recall one particular case where any rational homeopath would
definitely have given Pulsatilla - indeed you would have been mad not
to - but the prescription which yielded total clarity was not
Pulsatilla but the newly proved remedy Kauri (Agathis australis).
Similarly with Natrum muriaticum. Often the remedy which was
eventually given was another Muriaticum salt, for example Cuprum
muriaticum or Aurum muriaticum This would explain to me how prior to
the technology often I would give Natrum muriaticum in what appeared
to be a classic Natrum muriaticum case, only to be severely
disappointed by the result..." (K. Linnane, Center for Biolumanetic
Homeopathy, London)

Of course, we have confirmation when we have at least succeeded in some
manner (Hering/Vijayakar/Sehgal healing reactions that accompany the
diminution of the chief complaint(s). But what other DIMENSION of the case
is there beyond that point that we could see if we had many more modes of
perception and methodologies to draw from within ourselves?
========

==================
New place shifts the house/sign relations in one's chart, and one will
attract different clientele, possibly having a different style of NEED, and
which will make the materia medica look somewhat different. So, relocating
to BC from England should give you a different experience, would be my
guess--which should hopefully be exciting.

I repost below more on confirmatories which discusses a bit more the
questions you raise in the context of people who use a technology to
independently gauge similitude a priori; and retest the similitude of a
remedy after a successful result to assess when a new remedy is needed. I
have championed this approach though I have not been able to afford this
actual technology myself--as a way of demonstrating how inflated our view of
our own success is, with less than optimal results for clients and for
ourselves. Our range of semiological methods now available is very good,
and technology is ultimately a quality control service for clients,
especially in a high-volume practice. But I repeat posts about it because
most do not even know it exists, and it provides an interesting study on the
topic you are questioning about here, as well as a view of a great tool.

Best to you,
Andy

======================================
Discussion of use of biolumanetic photography--excerpt of an article by
Kieran Linnane of the London clinic which has
pioneered Biolumanetic confirmatory use in a high-volume Classical
Homeopathic practice:

By Kieran Linnane

6. The issue of the simillimum

The above leads me on to a discussion of the simillimum. This is a
very complex issue and Charles and I discuss this ad infinitum with no
absolute conclusions. We have read Massimo Mangialavori's beautiful
cases where he finds a perfect remedy for his patients and then this
remedy is repeated on and off over a period of years, with the patient
advised to take the remedy whenever he suffers from an acute.
Unfortunately, this does not reflect our own practice. We have found
that if a very precise remedy is given, the "state" for which the
patient is being treated tends to dissolve rather rapidly. Obviously,
if the state is very engrained this process might take a little
longer, but it usually does not take years and years. If the state
has been dissolved we do not understand why the same remedy should be
given again. It is our experience that once this state has dissolved,
another state (underlying this state) will rise to the surface
requiring another prescription. It is almost as if all the patient's
energy is going into coping with a particular problem. Once this
problem is resolved, another deeper issue will arise to the surface
requiring treatment.

To give an example from our own practice: we took the case of a
woman who had problems with anxiety and guilt around the rearing of
her baby son. We gave her Calcarea bromatum which successfully
reduced both the anxiety and guilt. She was a different woman when
she returned after a month. However, about four months later she
returned to our clinic wishing for more treatment as a sexual issue
which was a problem for her had not been touched by our prescription.
We knew that our patient required another remedy to heal this
particular layer which led us to prescribe another remedy, Natrum
fluoricum. Now, I suppose Massimo would argue that had we been better
homeopaths we would have been able to find a remedy which encompassed
all aspects of this case: the guilt, anxiety and sexual issues. We
are now back with the tyranny of the "constitutional remedy". Whilst
Charles and I attempt to give prescriptions based upon as much of the
totality of the case as we can, this is not always possible. Either
it is because of our lack of knowledge, or perhaps in a lot of cases
it is because there is no one remedy which covers such a totality. It
is perhaps significant that Massimo acknowledges that only a third of
his cases do wonderfully, another third are mediocre and the remaining
third do nothing at all. Perhaps this is more a reflection of my last
point, that in certain cases it is impossible to find a remedy which
covers the totality.

"...I had been practising homeopathy since 1986 but had felt increasingly
dispirited
with the mediocrity of my results. I knew that when homeopathy worked
there was no other medicine to equal its power but to find the correct
simillimum for my patients often felt arduous, confusing and downright
impossible at times.

Our protocol was to take an initial photograph of our patients,
followed by a detailed homeopathic case, and then patients would hold
various remedies while we photographed them. We made the assumption
that a remedy which produced a coherent photograph when held by the
patient was likely to be the simillimum or, at the very least, might
constitute a beneficial remedy for that patient. Coherence was our
benchmark for any remedy which we gave in our clinic and we have seen
from our results that this has proved to be a valid and pragmatic
modus operandi.

Below I will discuss our findings.

1. There are no major or minor remedies, only the correct
remedy for the patient.

Charles and I embarked upon our venture with high hopes of finding a
way to make homeopathy simpler and more effective. However, we soon
found ourselves feeling rather dispirited. This was due to the fact
that only very rarely did the polycrest remedies produce coherent
photographs. At this point we turned in desperation to Jan Scholten's
work on the mineral kingdom and without his input I think we might
never have got off the starting block. We discovered that every
patient entering our clinic needed a very precise prescription. There
appeared to be no short-cuts or handy specifics. Following on from
our study of Jan Scholten's material, we also were obliged to scan all
the newly proved remedies and to read all the back issues of
Homeopathic Links to hunt out unusual remedies. In some cases only
these would produce the clarity which we knew would provoke movement
in our patients.

EMPHASIS ADDED: A DEMONSTRATION OF HOW BLIND WE ARE USING SEMIOLOGY ALONE,
AS MUCH AS WE PAT OURSELVES ON THE BACK FOR A *SEEMINGLY* GOOD RX RESPONSE:

++++++++++++++++
We have, of course, given polycrests in our clinic
but these prescriptions do not constitute the majority of our
prescriptions. For instance, we have given Pulsatilla literally twice
over the last 3 years. This is not because we have not tested it. It
is just that the remedy often refuses to yield clarity even in those
cases where one would swear blind that this was a "Pulsatilla case."
I recall one particular case where any rational homeopath would
definitely have given Pulsatilla - indeed you would have been mad not
to - but the prescription which yielded total clarity was not
Pulsatilla but the newly proved remedy Kauri (Agathis australis).
Similarly with Natrum muriaticum. Often the remedy which was
eventually given was another Muriaticum salt, for example Cuprum
muriaticum or Aurum muriaticum This would explain to me how prior to
the technology often I would give Natrum muriaticum in what appeared
to be a classic Natrum muriaticum case, only to be severely
disappointed by the result.
+++++++++++++++++

The precision which is required in homeopathy was also confirmed
when I decided to bring into the clinic some patients of mine whom I
had been treating over a number of years prior to the technology but
for whom I had the sense that I had not yet found the optimum remedy.
(Truthfully, how many of these patients do you find on your books?) I
recall a mother and daughter who came. I had Charles retake their
cases and we spent about four hours struggling to achieve clarity.
The daughter, who suffered from sore throats and dysmennorhea I had
treated mainly with Silica and Tuberculinum over the years with some
improvement but no lasting disappearance of her symptoms. The two
remedies which eventually cleared up the case were Iris Germanica and
Calcarea silicata. The mother had various complaints including
recurrent bronchitis and anxiety. I had lost count of the remedies
which I had tried with her and I never had felt satisfied with the
results. The eventual remedy which was given which was to make a
profound difference to her health was Betula Alba. We found this all
rather alarming but it did explain the difficulties I had encountered
in both these cases.

EMPHASIS ADDED:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem with having to find a highly individual remedy for each
patient who walks into our clinic is that we literally have to scan
thousands of remedies.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We found ourselves sinking under a morass of
information. At this point Charles started to work on a workbook
where the remedies would be categorised according to their kingdom and
also he began to create "webs" of the different kingdoms. In this way
we started to get some kind of handle on things. We now are able to
intuit much more accurately when a patient requires a mineral, plant
or animal remedy. The plant remedies, however, present us with the
greatest difficulty in that there are literally thousands of remedies
about which we know very little.

2. In an unknown case give an unknown remedy

I have borrowed the above aphorism from Jan Scholten and we can
confirm its validity. At first we were tempted to try and fit the
remedies we knew to the particular case. After 3 1/2 years of work we
find ourselves in the unenviable position of completing taking the
case and knowing more often than we enjoy that we haven't got a clue
what remedy the patient requires. So I would say that after 13 years
of practice I now know when I don't know. This may be a step up but
it can often feel terribly daunting.

EMPHASIS ADDED:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem is how do you find a
remedy that you don't know? We do use the repertory (although Charles
and I would confess not be the greatest of repertorisers) and all the
books and computer programmes at our disposal. But we also using
dowsing at times. We use our pendulums to hunt out unknown remedies
when we are at the end of more analytical methods. Despite being
quite "classical" in our approach, we have no sense of shame in this.
We figure that our job is to find the best possible remedy for the
person in front of us and we will use any methods to achieve this
aim. Often, however, I will use my pendulum just to focus my mind
while I scan the remedies in our workbook and open myself up to
inspiration from the gods. I find myself wondering whether classical
giants like Vithoulkas and Mangialavori actually rely on their
intuition much more than they let on. Charles and I both agree that
the practice of homeopathy is the marriage of the analytical and the
intuitive. Some of our best prescriptions have arisen from a sudden
intuitive flash in one or other of us and of course the best
prescription is that which can be analytically validated as well.
This is not always possible if there is very little information about
the remedy or it has only recently been proved.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For more info:
biolum website: