this may be a beginner's question, especially as i've posed it a couple of times and no one picked up on it ... so maybe if i try a thread about it...?

anyway, research demonstrates a causal relationship between maternal smoking and the later development of symptoms that are allopathically characterized as "ADHD." arguably, the child in this situation has "suffered from" ADHD symptoms from the moment of conception...such, at least, would be the starting point of my argument, or question: if the individual has always had 'behaviors' (or "pre-behaviors" in the form of physiological reactions specific to tobacco), then there has never been a change from a prior state of well-being, so there can be no "disease," or no disordering of the life force.

except that situation is similar to the situation with miasmatic diseases. i know that people treat "ADHD" homeopathically (well, the whole person, including those symptoms traditionally grouped as the diagnostic entity) ... but how is this conceptualized, since there is no "onset?"

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Probably not from conception, as these things develope mostly during the first trimester, but no reason to nitpick .

You might well say that such a person is born with certain properties, and that is how that person is created, even if some of those properties make the person substandard from a health POV. So the person is not diseased. In principle, this does not mean that the person cannot be "cured", in the way that the disabilities might be rectified. We already know how to rectify a number of congenital defects.

I won't go into what I think of homeopathy's possibilities in this area, I think you know the answer . .... But I would be interested in hearing how anybody would propose to find a similum for a congenital defect.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

bach, i would think it worth giving homoeopathy a go in such a situation.
if you have a given child with 'adhd' you don't know for sure that maternal smoking or anything else is the cause.
the later the onset of adhd, the more optimistic one can be.
the way i conceptualise it [which could well be too simplistic and i would like to be informed further] is as follows:
we all have some genetic info which is less than optimum for a healthy life. in some people this is so much 'not optimum' that not much can be done to help balance the system, as the impaired genes dominate the health picture, and cannot be read in any other way by the vitality.
however, conditions which start subsequent to birth are such that the person has demonstrated in the first period of life that the genetic impairment can be 'bypassed' when conditions for existence are optimum. so - by means of homoeopathy one could look to sustain optimum conditions in which the person could function well and flourish.

First of all, Bach, aetiology is not always something that is of importance in every case--particularly if you have absolutely no concrete proof of a connection, as would be the case here. Sure, there's a lot of medical palaver about how smoking moms produce kids with ADHD--but in many cases this will be speculation and should not be used in repertorization anyway.

Miasmatically, you can see clear connections between the influence of tuberculosis in the family line...the dependency on cigarettes...and the kind of restlessness and confusion that are categorized with the label ADHD in your patient. This is not something to be taken as gospel either--its just a way of understanding the types of remedies you'll be thinking about in your differential diagnosis; not necessarily focused on any aetiology or direct "cause". In my experience, there are many, many many kids who get labelled with ADD and ADHD and other behaviour disorders which are similar to these (autism, for example); I don't often find them coming from homes where smoking is a common practice (but that tubercular miasm is still influential).

Every case is very different; there will, in fact, be a number of cases you'll see with ADHD where a very clear aetiology exists (the child was fine until about a week after we moved...or divorced...or his sister was born...or whatever--the you'd have to ask more questions to find out exactly what changes took place and try to find out what about the situation lead to the symptoms). There will often be cases where despite all the supposed causative factors, none will actually have any connection to the symptomatology you're seeing in the case in front of you. You still have to take the whole case and know the totality to practice homeopathically.

[ 16. January 2004, 12:25: Message edited by: ChaChaHeels ]

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

Anna: “if you have a given child with 'adhd' you don't know for sure that maternal smoking or anything else is the cause.”

Cha cha: “aetiology is not always something that is of importance in every case”

agreed. But that is the specific point of this thread, namely, to discuss those aspects of any disorder, not just ‘adhd,’ that have their origins in utero or earlier (miasmatic, other inherited characteristics). Of course, in actual practice (in real people), this necessarily becomes enmeshed in the whole diagnostic process, but conceptually it can still be separated out, and should be, with appropriate caveats reflecting degrees of certainty and uncertainty in the assessment. For this discussion, I have assumed that in any particular case, maternal smoking caused “all or some portion” of a group of symptoms.

Anna: “the later the onset of adhd, the more optimistic one can be.”

A good point – indeed, generally true that the earlier the “insult” to the organism, the more profound the ultimate impact on the individual, e.g. damage to a single cell very early during gestation can even be fatal …. Another aspect: if we say the ‘child’ was ‘never well since conception’, it would still be true that his condition became progressively worse during the course of the pregnancy, as new layers of toxins (maternal smoking, in this scenario) were laid down. In a sense, there is a change of state, but that is to be found in utero, rather than in the stages of childhood development. The fact this change of state took place so early, may mean prognosis is less favorable.

Anna: “we all have some genetic info which is less than optimum for a healthy life. in some people this is so much 'not optimum' that not much can be done to help balance the system”

So, whether the damage originates in utero or in infancy or in adulthood (exposure to toxic waste, e.g.), we still must evaluate how much responsiveness survives in the organism, in other words, prognosis. If we take ‘congenital’ to reflect absolute irreversibility, we must still determine on a case by case basis the degree to which particular symptoms, even those originating in utero, may be reversible; in fact, this suggests the idea that an undesirable trait (“excessive” distractibility) may be considered a “symptom” to the degree that it is, in fact, reversible; lacking reversibility, it becomes a “congenital defect,” a less than optimal, fixed constitutional trait.

In short, the fact that there has been no change in state since birth, doesn’t mean there is no disordering of the vital force: our ability to “help balance the system” (anna’s words) may, and of course does vary from one complaint to another, or from one patient to the next.

cha cha: "there will, in fact, be a number of cases you'll see with ADHD where a very clear aetiology exists (the child was fine until about a week after we moved..."

i see this often with iatrogenic diseases: a mild, happy, friendly child turns mean and spiteful; a well-adjusted 8 y.o. boy begins to exhibit himself to girls and touch inappropriately; a 6 y.o. becomes overwrought emotionally. in each of these cases, the onset of disease followed the initation of allopathic treatment with new medications, and in each case the symptomatic behaviors were undocumented side effects - the docs in each case were dubious about my recommendation to discontinue the meds, but they were nice guys, and agreed to do so as an experiment at least, since, as i pointed out, the coincidental timing of prescription/symptom was rather pointed, and there was no prior history. in each case, removal of the offending "substance" led to immediate behavioral recovery. i have seen similar reaction patterns to food, synthetic fibers, electrical waves ... in which "cleaning up the personal space" led to "miracle cures."

bach

[ 16. January 2004, 22:01: Message edited by: bwv11 ]

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

bach, in terms of what we are considering here, the womb has two functions:

1. as a grower of the foetus.
2. as the optimum enviroment for a foetus.

obviously the two functions are inextricably linked, but for the purpose of this topic consider the functions of the womb in a mother who smokes.

first consider function number 2, the environment for the foetus is impaired, and this alone could lead to problems if the foetus has contracted psora in utero - as the combination of the adverse environment [poisoning?] and psora, might cause the poisoning effects to engraft themselves upon the organism leading to disease.
in terms of function number 1, as a grower of the foetus, the womb might* also be impaired, leading to faulty genetic info. but faulty genetic info doesn't always lead to the expression of disease.

in practice who can tell which theoretical situation is going on?

Personally if Rx have been tried and haven't worked I would then look at vaccination damage giving those rx in potency. Have you looked at the MM of DTP?? It's ADHD all through it.

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

Anna: "the combination of the adverse environment [poisoning?] and psora, might cause the poisoning effects to engraft themselves upon the organism leading to disease. in terms of function number 1, as a grower of the foetus, the womb might* also be impaired, leading to faulty genetic info. but faulty genetic info doesn't always lead to the expression of disease.
in practice who can tell which theoretical situation is going on?"

first, assuming i understand you correctly, i'd be inclined to assume both were going on, in varying proportions. in any case, if this were applied to an actual patient, then i'd assume i would be raising the question in the context of observed symptoms. in this case, the question would be, are these "disease symptoms," i.e., curable, or are they "congenital defects," i.e., the irreversible sequalae of more profound trauma (or the same trauma at an earlier, more vulnerable stage of development)? perhaps the only way to tell the difference, ultimately, is trial and error: if the remedies that appear appropriate to the "symptoms" do not work, one concludes there was more profound and irreversible damage.

i suppose my point in this thread, therefore, is that the "onset" of illness is not always obvious, or even discernible. even in your scenario, you implicitly accept that in some situations there could well be a disease process, inaugurated in utero.


Ricky: "Personally if Rx have been tried and haven't worked I would then look at vaccination damage giving those rx in potency. Have you looked at the MM of DTP?? It's ADHD all through it."

actually, i think i framed my initial question too narrowly, really only intending "adhd" as an example of the kind of situation in which disease process is initiated in utero. could be almost anything: e.g., psychotic patterns of functioning brought on by ingestion of a medication that had not been adequately tested, or exposure to a chemical spill, unsuspected dietary influences (e.g., the use of lead utensils and waterways in the Roman Empire) .... i guess i'm only suggesting that in some cases, the roots of disease can be traced all the way back to the womb, which i think should not be surprising.

bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Bach said:
Okay, my point is you simply cannot repertorize assumptions. That will always lead you to the wrong path.

It is enough to note and consider that an ailment is congenital...but I don't know how you would conclude that about ADHD, for example. You can consider rubrics that are generalities, or simply consider remedies that share a common miasmatic symptomatology (which you then differentiate between by focusing on the remedies' distinct and disparate symptoms aside from the miasmatic sx).
Again, you are still looking at a case where you have to "ignore" the typical symptoms of that disease and focus on the totality, especially on what is strange, rare, peculiar, and unexpected.

If this really is just a study case where you want to find a rubric for ailments from tobacco, you can just look up that rubric in generalities.
Whether or not tobacco exposure is in utero or otherwise will not matter.

[ 17. January 2004, 01:19: Message edited by: ChaChaHeels ]

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

that's fair enough chris, well stated, and with that much i can't quarrel. in fact, thanks for the clarity. there have been a number of posts on recent threads that i've found especially useful, in conceptualizing or grouping remedies, putting the case together, and so forth. i'll add this last post of yours to that list with repeated thanks.

my point is still, i think, a little different than that. hans has made the point repeatedly, in particular, that there is no disease if there is not a change from a prior state. different members have, over time, made statements to the effect of "you can't treat personality," or "that's just who you are." my problem with this all along has been: how do you know that's who i am?

so if i bring someone with adhd to your office for treatment, and you ask when did the problem start, and i say he's "always" been like this ... do you treat him?

i'm not really sure i'm making myself perfectly clear, but maybe spiralling a little closer to the issue...?

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.