N.S. Vijayaganesh,
Have you come up with any more detailed complaints for us to consider?
The questionaire at the top of the list of topics could help.
We can always ask questions of you, but I am positive you have not yet exhausted an account of your problems.
Think of it as follows, for it is one of the central ways, if not the central way, we think about the reports of people’s health issues. Allopaths want to come to a disease diagnosis essentially because the pharmaceutical companies tell them which drugs with which they can choose to treat. Hence, when they determine an accurate disease diagnosis, job done for those bozo-quacks. We, on the other hand, need to come to a remedy diagnosis or curative prescription. Diagnosis means to “thoroughly know” something, so a remedy diagnosis is the actual means for the arrival at a therapeutic decision. This contrasts with a disease diagnosis, which is just a name of a pathological category that tells a lot of information (therapeutically useless, though) in one or two words about the pathological condition and prognosis but nothing leading to a drug that will cure all of that person’s symptoms. Pathology actually has little or nothing to do with therapeutics. They have artificially made it so by assuming that the one determines the other, which is actually totally impossible. They get around this falsehood by not prescribing for the patient, which by literal definition (I believe) would be a therapy, but against the disease. That is why we call it allopathy (“other or contrary suffering”). They are all opposition therapies, high-interference therapies, quasi-militaristic therapies doing battle with diseases. This obviously won’t work in the vast majority of cases because the chronic diseases are actually all auto-immune diseases where the organism destroys itself by going haywire. But a disease diagnosis does not point to only one medicine for a person; it points to a name for an abstraction that appears nowhere in the world because nobody has only those common symptoms and all curable people have the few highly individualizing uncommon symptoms of the person rather than of the disease that are outside of disease diagnositic cagetories composed of mere common symptoms. Yak, yak, yak. Very difficult to explain this sometimes. You told us only common symptoms, at least from what I can tell from it so far, composed of the symptoms common to large numbers of people and thus ignores everything else, which everyone nonetheless has as part of their disease picture. Symptoms when considered complete have four elements viewed in this way:
1. Location or locality of pain or sensation or problem. This will have two initial options of location, for things can affect us either in parts of our body or they can affect us as a whole or generally. Those are "my" (leg, my eyebrows hurts) and "I" (I feel dizzy, I get nervous in planes, etc.) symptoms. A symptom has to have a location to exist, so it is first located there. Please be specific when you think in these terms and all should be well.
2. Kind of pain or sensation. Descriptive words here can be very important so long as they are for real. Sensations “as if” are often helpful so long as one can interpret them.
3. Conditions under which this symptom is better or worse (times, weather, temperatures, motions, positions, food, sleep, anything).
4. Combinations of symptoms exist and are thus added here as concomitants.
We have a Questionaire at the top of the topics list of the Discussion page. Hahnemann asks a set of important questions at Article 89 here:
http://www.homeopathyhome.com/refere...n/organon.html
Just tell us more details please.
[ 24. June 2003, 22:21: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444 ]