dear homeolist,

sulph / hepar intercurrents -

the theoretical discussions are fine, but what finally helps clinically at the bedside is most important.learning from history is great. having respect for the founder of homeopathy is wonderful trait. but science is not history alone. one of the problems with homeopaths is their fixation with things of the past. mere discussing the cases done by hahnemann in the 1800's does not forward the scientific study of a subject. david little is correct when he states that "hahnemann was the alpha and not the omega of homeopathy".

I think H made different experiments in his life and they may not be taken as the final word - clinically. surely, H overprescribed and overused sulphur.

when we talk about complex / tedious / suppressed cases - I think all of us, patients and prescribers will fall in that category. most of us have been vaccinated at one time or the other, have taken allopathy, have taken dissimilar / partial simila homeopathy - so are all us a candidate to get a dose of sulphur ?
again, I think most (or is it all ?) of us (the prescribers) have atleast taken sulphur once. so is the pilgrimage with sulphur over ?
are we free from that primordial skin itch and all that ?

I would also like to draw the attention of the list to my recent post on miasms, where I highlight the obsession with psora and other things.

the clinical experience of vithoulkas, dr roger morrison, dr farok master, dr prafulla vijayakar, dr dhwale etc does not teach the use of sulphur the way hahnemann used ( cases opened with sulph - was that figure 60% ?) as reported in this list. strictly speaking, all our cases are complex and tedious now - so doe we open all cases with sulph 30 ?

again, most (if not all) have taken vaccination - so do we follow sulph with thuja for all ?

I respect history and historians - but I think a medical science is not something which is learnt / taught / discussed based on historical records or theoretical hair splitting. actual clinical practice, actual prescribing experience is what it is all about. again, this has to be in the present times and not in some remote past / centuries ago.

the clinical experience of vithoulkas, dr roger morrison, dr farok master, dr prafulla vijayakar, dr dhwale and others matters to me much more than the sulphur opening percentages in the case records of Hahnemann.

as far as the chronic rx in acute is concerned - I found the 2 posts by dr leela, in the earlier stages of this thread, to be quite compact and sufficient.
that is all that matters clinically.

the chronic rx is indicated in acute excaberation of chronics. in these cases the modalities remain the same. that the chronic rx worked in the acute crisis further confirms the chronic rx.

if the modalities are different (look at thirst, thermals etc) another remedy may be needed for the acute. after the acute phase is over - we get back to deal with the chronic.

perhaps, only this much is needed clinically.

sorry for the typos.

regards and love,

dr manish agarwala