otherhealth.com - View Single Post

bwv11 · #6 (**permalink**) 1st October 2004, 01:21 PM

as long as this discussion seems to have been initiated by a skeptic, perhaps it is not too far out of line to have it continued by someone who might, at best, be described as a fledgling lay homeopath.

aaanyway, you did very well in your initial response, hans. congratulations. it was actually pleasant to read! response to the second question should have been approached with similar seriousness of purpose, though. let me try:

dhundlachand,

there is in homeopathy always something of a struggle between classical practice - single remedy, single minimum dose, wait and see (prescribed on the totality) - and "revisionist" tendencies toward using remedies as "specifics" (directed toward a discrete diagnosis) and/or in combinations (of more than one remedy at a time).

even in classical practice, one encounters the problem. for example, in acute prescribing, one may often hear it said that, for bruised pain all over after a fall, use arnica, or something of that nature. the way to understand this apparent contradiction, of a classical practitioner using a remedy as a specific, is to realize that: a) in some situations, the characteristic symptoms of a disease are so striking and so consistently present from one patient to the next, that one is confident of finding, on taking a complete case, that this remedy will very often come up as indicated for the totality; b) remembering in this context that the striking or unusual or characteristic symptoms occupy a prominent place even in standard case taking, so it is not hard to understand that in striking diseases (an acute condition, or an epidemic) the "temporary" totality will take on a characteristic profile in most patients, leading to the same remedy; c) that even so, potency will vary from one patient to the next, and there will still be patients who respond better to a different remedy: EDIT to add: in fact, it is common to find that 2-3 remedies or so come up as potential "specifics," for a particular problem situation, which underscores the fact that some conditions do lead prescribing in a particular direction, while not eliminating the necessity to individualize.

further, just as some diseases place a strong, characteristic stamp on the totality of the patient, there are some remedies that have a particularly strong effect on a particular symptom. these symptoms, for these remedies, are "keynotes," and are identified in the materia medica by italics or boldface, to indicate they are "graded" as especially significant indicators for the use of these remedies. in practice, therefore, it is often tempting to match these keynotes to patients with specific diagnoses. in fact, this may be a legitimate means to begin to identify remedies that might be useful for a particular patient, and indeed, using remedies in this fashion may bring some success ... but such a procedure is frowned upon in classical practice because it ignores individualization, is more likely than classical procedure to cause suppression, even when it does work to eliminate presenting complaints, and will not act as profoundly as the single remedy similimum.

still, such procedures are quicker than classical prescribing. and, they are rather seductive, because easier and showing some successes, which is the basis for "innovation." similarly, combination remedies are created, often with much research investigation behind them, to cover a broad range of causation and variation in type of symptom: "hit 'em with everything you've got," is the motto.

as for the vendor in the health food store: he's not a homeopath, he's a businessman, so of course he sells products that people buy. and if he is a "homeopath," but one who believes in combo remedies, then he is perfectly justified in selling the product, especially as he believes in its efficacy, if we consider it important for a merchant to believe in his product. certainly, many do, but that is hardly pertinent to our discussion ... i don't think we have a double blind procedure to determine honesty or virtue amongst vendors, physicians, or, for that matter, research scientists, who, after all, also peddle their wares and who seem more than most to speak with one mind.