Grauvogl, Clarke, Burnett, Hahnemann
Hi Passkey dear Members
Grauvogl was not a homeopath, even though he started out to become a homeopath. He just found it too difficult and then got the idea about the tissue salts.
J.H. Clarke was closer to allopathic procedure than to Homeopathy in what he wrote and the way he treated.
So, -- if these two gentlemen talk of constitutional remedies, they do that outside the homeopathic context.
If the remedy selection is accurate, much depends on the potency and aplication.
Joe described in his last post a method similar to the one advised by Hahnemann in the 6th Organon. He used the Q-potency scale, which is much more refined than the C-scale.
Nat-m is not any more or less a remedy for ''asthma'', than any other well proven remedy. It's down to the individual disease-symptom-picture, which determines the course of action.
Therefore the advice to take/continue Nat-m in this situation is based on guesswork, assuming, that Nat-m is similar enough to bring about cure.
This I doubt, as the action has shown.
As homeopaths, we are not guesso-paths, and we would not determine the remedy unless we have the full case at hand. We abstain from --try this and that-- sort of treatment, and I am quite happy to leave this way of handling treatment to the allopaths.
It is like throwing stones into the dark and at the same time hoping, that they don't come back.
Hahnemann often needed to resort to more than one remedy to bring about cure, as we can see in the reprints of his journals. Yet again, there are also cases where one remedy alone cured.
Compton Burnett experimented a lot, not only on healthy individuals, but also with gravely sick, -- another thing I gladly leave to the allopaths.
|