My dear Shirley,

I don't remember where you said in the past. but today you verified, what you said in the past.
Please don't take my words seriously and answer the following questions. Just for the sake of getting knowledge from you.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I think of Carc when a case has elements of several different remedies, but doesn't quite fit any of them; and there is a family history of cancer, diabetes and/or heart disease. Plus there have to be some of the specific Carc rubrics in the case.<hr></blockquote>

If you found several different remedies but doesn't quite fit (it is called indicated remedies or well selected remedies) then you will consider about carc (it is called less indicated or unselected). This is the real question which we are discussing here.

Please elaborate....

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>If a case is stuck, well selected remedies are not working and a particular miasm seems clear, then I would give a nosode.<hr></blockquote>

Again this is the question we are discussing now. a well selected is not working and you are considering about nosode i.e may be carc or med.
Her carc is well not selected remedy. How the case was struck. What capability carc has to remove that drainge.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But I actually don't do that very often -<hr></blockquote>

Exactly no often, but when well selected remedy fails to achieve reasonable response and you will give unselected remedy i.e. nosode or deep acting remedy like thuja (unselected)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Maybe someone else can remember who mentioned Carc for stuck cases. <hr></blockquote>

Yes! I accept may be someone else mentioned about failure of selected remedies

Here I quote

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>unless the first few well-selected remedies don’t work.....Then I consider possible miasmatic blocks .....Carc when there is a strong history of cancer, diabetes or heart disease on both sides of the family.<hr></blockquote>

I still believe that if the remedy is struck then re repertorize the case and give remedy according to the latest position.

If a well selected remedy is got fail then don't give unselected remedy.

[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: DR.MAS ]</p>

__________________
Hafeez
Forum Pk

drms,

I was not talking about nosode. What i mean to say thuja and carcinosin have the ability to remove certain layers which are the main hurdles in the cure of the disease. :razz:

__________________
<b>Love rules without rules.<br />Love rules his kingdom without a sword.<br />Love is like scarlet fever -- one has to go through it and get it over. <br />Where there is love, there is peace. <br />Love is not obedience </b>

jshah,How many layers are their in our body.

__________________
Hafeez
Forum Pk

Dear Dr. Cartoon and others,

I heard similar sayings in my early days of training, and still so from some teachers. They did disturb me much. I used to ask one of these people, "when you prescribe 'nosodes to remove miasmatic block, you're NOT prescribing according to similarity of symptom totality, are you?" The answer was: "NO".

So it's clear, such prescribing is NOT homeopathy, NOT in accordance with law of similars.

From my understanding, 'layers', 'nosodes', 'miasmatic block', etc. are often just 'theories' to account for not having given the right remedy.

I do know that sometimes certain remedies like Carc, Psor, Med, Syph, Bacil, Thuj, etc. (often, but not always nosodes) are used with success in these kind of situations. But, let's be honest: some of these remedies have not been properly proven in spite of wide clinical use (e.g. Carc) and they are NOT prescribed on symptom silimarity (between proving Sx and patient's Sx) - So let's not call it homeopathy for such prescriptions.

We do fail in selecting the simillimum sometimes and will support the patient with other means, be it diet, lifestyle, positive thinking, Bach flowers, nutrition, etc. I think that prescribing nosode by speculating 'miasmatic block' is one these non-homeopathic measures.

[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: Arden Wong ]

[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: Arden Wong ]</p>

Arden Wong or any other

Could you please differencite to me the difference bewtween proved medicines and unproved in our homeopathic system of medicine.

__________________
Best regards<br />sozo

Dear Dr. MAS,

I’ve been away form the board for a while, so haven’t responded to your questions.

This is a very complicated question. Lets take Carc. When I say ‘a case has elements of several different remedies, but doesn’t quite fit any of them’, I’m not talking about well selected remedies. If one or several (in which case I would have to differentiate among them) remedies fit, then they would be well selected and I would give the one that is the closest fit. What I’m referring to is a case where there are several remedies that fit part of the picture, but none of them would be considered similar. In this situation, if there is a strong family history of cancer, diabetes and/or heart disease, especially form both sides of the family, we have strong clinical evidence that Carc can move the case forward. The wonderful thing is that in these cases there are also invariably symptoms that do fit the Carc pictures. I would be hesitant to give Carc if there were no symptoms that matched those elicited during the provings.

I think the problem in the classical sense is that this is based on clinical experience rather than the provings. To my way of thinking, if a proving is done with say 25 people and a particular symptom does not come up, there is always the possibility that if you had added five more people to the proving base, each of those five might have experienced the symptom you are working with. So, if there is clinical experience for something, I am willing to consider it as long as there are no contraindications when nothing else seems like a good fit.

I think of nosodes as any other remedy. The same with Thuja. However, there are often miasmatic (or we can call them hereditary) factors to consider. Also past illnesses or vaccines that can be causing problems. In each of these cases, symptoms of the actual nosode have to be there (and will be there) in the case.

An example – let’s say I have a case (this is actually an example of someone I am working with now) and on repertorising, there are two remedies that are very well indicated. After a period of time on each of them, he reports that each time he improved for a little while, but it didn’t last. Going up in potency has not helped. Given his age, even though he does not remember any untoward reaction after his childhood vaccinations, I make an assumption that the case may be blocked because of them. I then look at remedies that have a clinical record of helping to unblock vaccine reactions and find that he has several rubrics that match Thuja. Thuja would not be the similimum because it does not cover the totality of the case. However, I give Thuja. He responds very well to it and it holds.

This happened to be a person who has moved around the country some and has seen two other very good homeopaths, but moved after several months, so did not continue with either. Some time after seeing him, I received the case notes from both homeopaths and they both had come up with the same two remedies I had which had not worked. So I think the first two remedies were indeed well selected, but that something was keeping them from acting.

I agree that when a well selected remedy does not work, there is probably something in the case that is missed and it needs to be retaken, but occasionally a different approach needs to be used.

I hope that clarifies my approach for you.

Shirley Reischman

__________________
Shirley Reischman

seen reply. thanks

Dear Sozo and others,

Some remedies in our MM have gone through proper provings and are thus properly recorded in the MM. However, some others, eg. Carc, Penicillin, DPT vaccine, etc. are only proved 'incompletely' (i know it's hard to determine what is complete and what is not) or prescribed tautopathically or only based on single etiology rather presenting symptoms.

The 'problem', or caution when using the latter kind of remedies is that we are actually using a different logic in their prescription: Since 'this remedies cured this symptom(s) in several patient(s) in the past', therefore it is expected to cure the patient with similar symptoms in the future. Obviously this is NOT the same as our old Law of Similars: 'A remedy that produces symptoms in the healthy shall cure the similar symptoms.' This is FUNDAMENTAL in homeopathic philosophy.

This has been a very disturbing point for me. I hope some experienced ones can answer this if you have a different thinking.

Best regards.

Shirley please suggest some sites for info on carc

__________________
<b>With warmest regards<br />Q.T</b>

I don't know of any sites for Carc off hand. The best references that I'm aware of are 1)Dr. Douglas Foubister, Tutorials on Homeopathy; 2) Don Webley, Carcinosin, Simillimum, Fall 1992 V No.3; and 3) Jonathan Shore, MD, DHt, The Emerging Clinical Picture of Carcinosin, 1989 IFH Professional Case Conference.

I think we use clinical symptoms of remedies much more than anyone wants to admit. We need to realize that most provings are done with a limited number of people and it could very likely be that if more people were in the proving, additional symptoms would develope. By clinical, I mean symptoms that have been cured by the remedy in practice, rather than symptoms developed by the remedy in proving.

Shirley

[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: sreischman ]</p>

__________________
Shirley Reischman