Dear Anna,
I am only posting this on the BB because I have written you two private emails and a telephone call, but you have not answered them.
Re: "Newborn with septicemia"
Any basic first aid course with teach:
- number one - make sure the patient is breathing and the air passages are clear
- number two - stop any bleeding
Anna are you saying the first two rules of 'first aid' treatment should be rewritten? your quote - "and Phosphorus was not needed to stop the bleeding first" Are there different priorities for homeopathic acute treatment?
Correcting the bleeding problem first to promote recovery will now prevent other
problems popping up later as the oldest and first symptoms have been cured according
to how they presented themselves.
The initial symptoms of discharges were not dark like baptisia as you indicated. "Baptisia has in its symptom picture dark discharges such as were evident in this case."
Baptisia discharges are; nose dark blood, dark red tumid mouth, throat dark red, urine
dark red, red dusky congestion of the face.
The baptisia can now work as a healing remedy and not just as a palliative
treatment. The baptisia could have been started sooner, as soon as the orange
discharge stopped.
Respectfully since you have an opinion on how to treat this case, I ask for your
recomendations as to the follow up treatment of "Newborn with septicemia".
When the right remedy has been given then Baptisia is known for speeding up the
recovery and for heightening the immune system. Hochstetter recommends using
baptisia 6D for four weeks. Do you agree? What is your opinion on this. How often
per day would you use it? Without homeopathy it takes up to three months for
recovery and possible complications but with homeopathy it will be one third the time
and done properly there will be no lasting problems.
What other remedies do you expect will be needed later?
Sincerely
Carole Franske

[ 04 May 2001: Message edited by: cib ]

[ 09 May 2001: Message edited by: jonh ]

Dear Carole,

I re-read the topic about Meg's niece--the baby--and it seems to me that her post regarding the discharge stopping was simply a statement that the discharge had stopped and that the baby now had jaundice. She didn't say, I gave phos., the discharge stopped, but now the baby has jaundice.

So, unless Meg clears this up for us, we really don't know why the discharge stopped. We don't know if the discharge was supressed into jaundice courtesy of the allopathic drugs. And I'd like to know this for myself; because all she said towards the end of her thread was, "Gave phos, then Bapt., baby recovered." So, in light of this discussion, I really feel it is first necessary to know from Meg when the phos. was given and if it acted at all. Since she may not check this topic, I'll try asking on
her original thread.

Snoopy

Dear Anna,
I advise you to be very careful of the statements you make on this BB because a lot of inexperienced and non homeopaths read the BB. So because of this they don't know any better, hense thay believe what is written on the board without having knowledge to reason on it. When signing onto this BB one is asked to promise that what they say must be what they believe to be
true. As you claim to be a homeopath yourself then you are under an even greater obligation in this regard. You are a relatively new practicioner, so how can you back up the statement you made? You have not refuted my last post and I wonder why. I am sure you have some homeopathic reference or experience to form this opinion on, and I would like to learn from it to understand why you came to the conclusion that you expressed saying "It seems clear to me that it was Baptisia that saved this child's life, and Phosphorus was not needed." This is a very bold declaration, so please enlighten me.

I present the reasons for my treatment below, according to basic rules of homeopathy:
Producing a cure: what are the rules and what is the evidence?
You will find this in the reps. They say that potencies under 200C can only stimulate, or be palliative and reduce the symptoms . They may in fact overcome an infection effectively but the condition preceeding the illness will not be cured and repercussions may later develope because of this. One of the easiest methods of dealing with sickness is to give medicines that put a stop to the evident symptoms, however this is more apt to further upset the vital force by suppressing individual expression on the the disordered vital energy.
Potencies over 200C cure the predisposition to the illness. I understand this to be the aim of a Classical Homeopathy and I understood you had this type of training. The conclusion is that because over 200C was used in this case then an inherited disposition to this type of illness will
have been corrected and brought into balance.
The phos was directly designed at the under lying causation, the constitutional inherited
miasm and the bacteria itself, to get to the root of the ailment. It may be needed in some cases also for a pseudo miasm that is given by vaxination.
The result of the condition was sepsis, poisoning from the bacteria digestion. The bapt was the cleanser for the toxins that the bacteria produced. Bapt given in low potency is a immune system hightener and hastened the recovery time by enabling the body to remove the toxins that the bacteria produced. It is a recovery remedy. Herbalist and naturopaths are also taught this.

Use the strange, rare and peculiar symptoms as a key to determine the remedy.
The very fact that it was difficult for others to find the rubric for the orange discharge qualifies it as rare and unusual. An oddity about a case will lead to and indicate the correct and specific
remedy. This requires a lot of knowledge, understanding and experience.

I invite you Anna to present your facts to back up your statement. "It seems clear to me that it was Baptisia that saved this child's life, and Phosphorus was
not needed." If you do not communicate
your rationale on this, then I accept that you acquiesce.

Why have I written this? "stand complete with firm conviction" Col. 4:12. A little life was at stake. The most precious thing there is "life." I owe it to the marvelous laws of the universe to do this. I take giving a prescription very seriousely and give it with care. I am aware that I am responsible for the outcome of any remedy
I prescribe.
Sincerely
Carole Franske

Dear Carol,

I haven't really been watching this thread or the other, but I noticed something you have said here which caused me some concern. You say that potencies under 200c cannot cure, only palliate. Where did you get that information from? I have never seen this to be true. Different people need different potencies, matched to the intensity of their complaint. I have frequently seen 30c clear up a case nicely, although they may go on to need other remedies later. 30c is a strong potency, Hahnemann used nothing higher for a long time. Is this something you were taught or have you read it somewhere? I often find the nosodes can be used at 30c to remove an miasmatic block.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

Dear David,
It is the usual thinking that 30c cures. However when knowing that palliation may last for years and suppression may take years to show due to the different disease it may bring it is hard to recognize the palliation that has taken place. It can take as long as fifty years in some cases before the result of the so called "cure " with the 30c shows. Repeated unchanged doses are forbidden by Organon. So based on the short time of seeing the patient as ordinarily a homeopath may not see a patient again after five treatments, one cannot know, can they, becuause we have not seen the patients many years later as in the case of long time patients that come back just to see the homeopath and tell them how well they are doing. This is the case with one's like Govi and other long time homeopaths.
As far as I know this complex problem has not been researched through, even though it should have been.
Arthurs such as Rajesh Shah and Andre Saine are steadily mentioning this phenomena.
Andre Saines states that the failure of successul cases is the result of defective things.
In about 70% of the cases a defective doctor can be blamed. In those 70%, it can be divided up into mostly poor case taking 40%, then poor case analysis 25%, and poor materia medica knowledge 10%. The rest of the failures in cases can be ascribed to poor tools 10%, a defective patient less than 5% or an incurable case less than 5% and the unknown.
Rahjesh Shah, calls it pseudo-homeopathy.
The statment, "in my experience" is of no validation in this connection, because long lived authors, with many many years of practise, have quite a different point of view.

[ 08 May 2001: Message edited by: cib ]

Andre Saine is well known for his courses and his, shall we say, "bedside manner", which is often kindly described as "difficult". However, he loses a great deal of credibitility in the community because many people believe he spends an inordinate amount of time calling other practitioners substandard, in what others perceive to be an effort to make himself appear to be more wise. But let me assure you, Andre Saine makes mistakes and has his failures, too. As do all practitioners. His mistakes and failures add up to the same thing as everyone else's: patients who have not become well, or who have not improved their situations at all and may have become worse off.

When someone finds a quote from Hahnemann's works which states this "no one gets cured on 30c" rule, I'll believe it. Until then, I think I'll hang on to my well-grounded belief that every single patient and case will be different from all the rest, and nothing can be predicted regarding the way the remedy will act.

Divina

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Divina, I'm getting a feeling of deja vu around this topic, aren't you? Didn't we begin our life on the BB quoting from the Organon in an effort to point out that Hahnemann viewed, in his last years, the administration of the high centessimal potencies to be too violent for people with chronic disease? Well, brace yourself, here we go again!

Hahnemann says in aphorism 161 that aggravations in chronic disease "should not be allowed to take place during the treatment." How much more explicit can he get than that? In aphorism 129, he says, "Not all people are equally strongly affected by a medicine; on the contrary, there are great variations in this regard....
There are very strong people who feel very marked disease symptoms from an apparently mild medicine, and lesser ones from stronger medicines, etc. Since one cannot know this in advance, it is highly advisable to start with a small dose of medicine for everybody, and where appropriate and necessary, increase it from day to day."

And people who have made a serious study of the Organon and Hahnemann's final years, people like Robin Murphy, David Little and Luc De Schepper, will tell you that they start every chronic case with a 6C three times a day, or an LM/1 once a day, and they go up in potency as needed, and their patients don't suffer needlessly, and they are most certainly cured when the remedy has been correctly chosen. We are doing a lot of unnecessary damage with these super high potencies, and we read about them frequently right here on the bulletin board.

Snoopy

Isn't this the old Kentian idea that a case should be finished off by going up to the highest Centesimal ranges 10M, 50M, MM and so on in order to remove miasmatic presdispositions? And that the lower potencies were reserved for coarser, heavy vibrations (labourers and uneducated folk), and for the purposes of palliation.
At least that's what I was taught!

The interesting thing is that Kent moved right away from this position (of using ultra high potencies) towards the end of his life and you can find evidence of this in his Lesser Writings. I'm in the process of curbing my tendency to be pedantic (and sigh) so I won't bother with the references.
But I look forward to cib's return so the matter can be taken up further, if possible.

On a personal note, when Robin Murphy's work became known in Australia, I thought I'd reached homoeopathic nirvana. Finally, someone who had the intellect to debunk the myths that had been perpetuated for years, or at least had done enough personal research to know how to question 'facts'. In the last couple of years we've had seminars by Franz Vermeulen and Jan Scholten both of whom openly questioned Hahnemann's provings and methods respectively. I don't know what Andre Saine's perspective is, is he trashing people for the sake of it or does he really want to know how they get the results they do? I've had conversations with other practitioners about other homoeopath's methodologies here, some of which seem dubious. To be totally honest, it comes in part from an insecurity about my own competence as a homoeopath. It also comes from a 100% committment to do my best for another person who has asked me for help. And finally it comes from a committment to do the right thing by homoeopathy itself. At the end of the day it is churlish to deprive anyone of their successes. But I reserve the right to question it.

As for these percentages to explain failed cases, I think for myself I'd have to raise poor case analysis up to 40%. Robin Murphy's recommendations (6C, 2 or 3 times a day in chronic cases) only work for me in nice neat functional psoric cases who respond well to 1 or 2 remedies. When it's a more complex, layered case I found this routine prescribing got me into loads of trouble in terms of case management, not to mention the aggravations caused to unwitting patients. This is why I've learned to be conservative from the beginning in administering a dose. Not having to deal with aggravations from the start saves time in the long run.

chrisg

I have to say that like David K. this is all news to me as well. I would like to know more. Is it possible to read about this somewhere.

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

Dear Carole,
Can I jump into the breech here? Seems as if you want to flog a dead horse here with wanting to establish 'which remedy cured the case?' and there seems to be a certain amount of stress involved in taking/giving/receiving credit etc etc etc.
Generally speaking, and in my experience, the last remedy given cures the case......otherwise you'd still be looking for the remedy wouldn't you?
Weighing up jaundice and orange discharge , I'd say jaundice was more life threatening.
Plus I have used 30c's to cure cases, long chronic cases actually and I've started cases with 6c's and had lovely cures there too.There are NO ABSOLUTES IN HOMEOPATHY. Every case is different, every client is different.What works here, won't work there, no matter how hard you push it....and making a remedy fit a case was my first learning curve in Homoepathy.....don't do it!
There are no rules, there are only guides, there are no answers only tons of questions.
Don't you think that it's more important to watch and observe what happened in this case : a little kiddie got better, than trying to make rules and answers and points.
She's better. End of story. Well done....
NEXT.......
Simon