Minutus

Dear Simon

IMHO we individualise in every case. So if we have done some thing in one
case it does not mean that I will do it for every other case.

The idea behind a single remedy selection is that we aim to find the
SIMILIMUM for the case.

I would call this way of prescribing poly pharmacy. At least one of the
remedies employed seems to have brought about a miracle, so I guess it must
have been homoeopathic to the case/condition.

In cases of poly pharmacy such as this, the question that arises is what was
the role of each remedy.
Were they all similar and did they all work or was it the case that just one
of them was working? How can we know and or find out.

It would be interesting to know what was the reasoning behind the
prescription.

I would always try and use a single remedy, because from the reaction I
would know what to do next.

However, if I am running out of time and my single remedy has not shown much
improvement, if it is the choice between trying something like this or the
guy losing his leg/life, I will do anything to save the leg/life.

Rgds
Soroush

Dear Magda

Before Hn discovered dilution and potentisation, he was using crude and
material doses.
Was that homoeopathy?
In my view it was.
So dilution and succussion and minimum dose are not ESSENTIAL, but through
experience the best way to practise.
Prescribing on the basis of Symptom Similarity is the only Essential
element.

-----

In place of
"Using Homeopathic remedies to treat patients does not equate to
'Homeopathic treatment'.", did you mean to say
"Using potentised remedies to treat patients does not equate to 'Homeopathic
treatment'."?

A remedy is only proved homoeopathic after it has been prescribed and the
reactions caused evaluated.

Rgds
Soroush

HI Soroush,
#### yes, but this way way in the beginning and he did improve his
methods....
#### Yes, because it was the use of "similars" to cure "similars".
### I agree!
#### Well, it is the way that Hahnemann found to work best after his
extensive experimentations. But these are now part of our foundation, are
they not?
#### I agree with you on this to a certain point. Hahnemann found that even
the most similar remedy would cause aggravations if the dose size was too
large. The size of the dose became a very important part of his practice
and we see this with his use of LMs and medicinal solutions. It was all
part of his life long work to bring Homeopathy to his goal, of relieving the
suffering of humanity.
#### Well, I guess this is a matter of semantics and rush in typing. The
point is that many people today use Homeopathic remedies are we get them
(whether 3C or 10M or any other potency) to treat diseases and not patients.
Remedies are being used more and more in an allopathic manner with an
allopathic mentality. And this was my point. This use of remedies is not
Homeopathic.
#### That is correct, but when we are using two or three remedies at the
same time, how do we know which one was Homeopathic? This practice tends to
confuse the case, and make it almost impossible to achieve a true cure. If
we don't which remedy the patient responded to, how do we know is
Homeopathic? Would it not be better if we adhered to the principles of
homeopathy of the single remedy most similar to the patient's symptoms
instead of throwing the kitchen sing at a disease???????

Magda

Hi Saroush, as # below..
#I'm not sure the prescriber was advocating this prescription for all
similar cases?
Perhaps she could comment?

#Does a simillimum seem clear to you on the information available in
this case?
What further information might you have needed if you can imagine
yourself in the prescribers situation for this case, and can you
imagine being able to elicit it?
That sounds like a strong contender:-)
#That's one that could be speculated about ad infinitum I imagine!

#Jennifer?

#So do you agree with Joy here as well that this means it would be
better for you to give up homeopathy in such a situation?

Potentisation is one of the key principles of homeopathy, as described by Hahnemann in the Organon. So I think there may be a difficulty with calling the prescription of crude material doses homeopathy.

Finrod wrote:Dear Magda

Before Hn discovered dilution and potentisation, he was using crude and
material doses.
Was that homoeopathy?
In my view it was.
So dilution and succussion and minimum dose are not ESSENTIAL, but through
experience the best way to practise.
Prescribing on the basis of Symptom Similarity is the only Essential
element.

-----

In place of
"Using Homeopathic remedies to treat patients does not equate to
'Homeopathic treatment'.", did you mean to say
"Using potentised remedies to treat patients does not equate to 'Homeopathic
treatment'."?

A remedy is only proved homoeopathic after it has been prescribed and the
reactions caused evaluated.

Rgds
Soroush

On Jun 24, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Simon King wrote:
OTOH it could have been a case of, "That plus a dollar gets you a cup
of coffee!" It's also possible that one or more of the *other*
therapies did the work! Still, if it were *my* leg, I'd find all this
would be somewhat irrelevant.
Shannon

Most patients don't care - polypharmacy vs single remedy - so long as you still have a leg! In extreme cases extreme measures can be called for, this seems to be one such.

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:On Jun 24, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Simon King wrote:
OTOH it could have been a case of, "That plus a dollar gets you a cup
of coffee!" It's also possible that one or more of the *other*
therapies did the work! Still, if it were *my* leg, I'd find all this
would be somewhat irrelevant.
Shannon
ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, you can simply change your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a single daily digest.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

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

It's one of our major tools, but so far as I recall he does not give it
as a defining point; are you recalling a specific quote?
Shannon

The only defense I can say is that the lab reports reported Staph, but in
muscle testing it was seen that Staphlytoxinum not Staphylococcus was
needed. As this was so severe and significant amounts of flesh was rotting
and putrid, he took the Pyrog for about 3 days to help get things under
control. Sometimes in critical situations like this, one does not have the
luxury of wait and see....

I love to read OLD homeopathic books. In them, (mostly eclectic physicians)
I've seen several historical doctors who have used more than one remedy at a
time. Sometimes, one in the morning and one at night, but never the less...
I'm not going to argue about it. I like to read these old books to learn
what they knew that I didn't - why they could cure things that we can't in
today's society.

Health, Hope, Joy & Healing :
May you Prosper, even as your Soul Prospers 3John 2

Jennifer Ruby

Email advice is not a substitute for medical treatment.

http://www.rubysemporium.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SymphonicHealth
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Therapeutic-Laser_Therapy
http://www.lazrpulsr.com
______________________________________________
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

I quite agree! I'd do it the single-remedy way *if* I felt confident
that I could make it work. But it's a situation where I would
definitely be willing to compromise, if i felt that would stack the
odds in my favor.

Usually (nearly always) I feel that the benefits of
one-remedy-at-a-time make it well worth the possible short-term
inconvenience. Thus far (only a few patients, but spanning about 15
years) I have *never* given more than one remedy at a time. But I've
thought about this sort of situation, and "what would I do if...", and
I am in agreement with you! (And for those who would choose
differently, I can only say that when the chips are down, you have to
follow your gut...)
Shannon