Does anyone please know of any clinical cases of Kent or Hahnemann which consider the subject of acute and chronic renal failure/atrophy. I am particularly interested in the extent to which patients can be helped when the physical degeneration is extreme(or even bi-lateral). I would also be interested in any other homoeopaths' experiences in this area. (I am not looking for non-classical answers on specific remedies, only for experiences of case management and evidence of tissue regeneration following classical single-dose prescribing). Many thanks for your help.
Martha

Its impossible to say anything about the extent, as it is all individual, one person can regenerate completely, another show no reactions at all on a well chosen remedy.
You cant give homeopathy allopathic comparision in that way, its impossible.
Remedies used, is tub (neprhities), apis,alumina, caust, cortizone,plumb, etc, it differs from patient to patient. Tip: most patients suffering from this, has damages from cortizone,antibiotics or other allopathic remedies, or from heavy metals, today only a few from a disease of natural origins.

I think you misunderstand my request. I was asking any homoeopaths who have experience of treating individual cases with severe renal degeneration if they would be so kind as to share any details of renal tissue changes that occurred IN THOSE INDIVIDUAL CASES following classical homoeopathic treatment. I am not looking for a generalised response from an allopathic perspective about "treating kidneys" or for named specific remedies, both of these would obviously be unhomoeopathic and useless.
It is possible that none of the people participating in this discussion site has experiences in this area. Although someone might know of some clinical case histories relating to this area.
I shall wait and see.
Martha

I have had a few cases like that, as you sometimes see in advanced untreated diabetes. After the first dose of the remedy little tissue change was visible, even though the patient made good progress. the second dose afetr about 8 weeks, brought also gradual tissue change for the better.The kidneys were seen to repair themselves. It took however over 3 years for the kidneys to be fifty percent active and healthy, while the rest was mainly scar tissue. However, the function was as if normal kidneys were there. Hence we see that in such cases the functional restoration takes priority for the body, while the restoration of the structure seems to be secondary to that. After all, you can lead a perfectly healthy life with 1 kidney, hence with 50% less function or structure.
I hope this sort of thing was what you are looking for. I think it is Stuart Close, who says that the presence of a lesion or even a tumour, says little about the health of the patient, especially after the remedy. He also opines that surgical removal is in such cases preferable, but I beg to differ. I think the use of the knife can and should be avoided as much as possible.

Dear Ben,
Thank you for sharing those experiences, particularly about the return of function prior to much tissue repair. Your findings are both interesting and helpful. I do realise that you are talking about an individual case/s, but I am just trying to see what might be possible, in cases of gross pathology, through some of the curative results experienced by other practitioners.
I agree entirely about the avoidance of surgery. I am considering a case in which the patient has already had one nephrectomy, has extensive atrophy of the second kidney and is on dialysis(although she is not on heavy medication).
I know that Kent and others talk about cases in which remedies cure the person, but the physical pathology remains beyond restoration/regeneration. I have seen cases myself, for example, in which a patient can be taken back to a psoric state, without any improvement to their baldness, because their hair follicles have actually died-off. My colleagues and I have also observed a lack of regeneration in tooth enamel and in diabetes in which pancreatic function has almost ceased.
I think it is important to be able to share experiences on some of these difficult areas in a constructive forum. Many thanks for your contribution.

one case of renal failure(both) ,that I had treated ,Lachesis 30 in single dose ,reduced his serum creatinine and blood urea to normal for some months.When I saw him on the first time ,he was iin severe dyspnoea and want to be fanned all the time.After above said remedy he became almost normal for some months and he asked me when he can able to go for his job(manual labore).He was in strict diet.But one day after taking some beef and fatty food without the knowleddge of others ,again he became worse and died after some days.
Another case now in my hand ,shows considerable improvement with sepia , followed by calc ars(frequency of urination, pain renal regiion etc).
some other medicine done good to this condition are alfalfa and cup.ars
jayakumar pannakkal

Because Classical Homoeopathy is the only Homoeopathy. It is a science based on logical principles and provings of single doses, as set out by Samuel Hahnemann - not on trial and error. He proved that a medicine acts on the whole person, therefore the remedy must be similar to the totality of the case, and a person cannot be both x remedy and y remedy at the same time. I do not see any logic in multiple dose or multiple remedy prescribing, both of which are unable to bring about cure, and I see no need to consider them further. A remedy is non-material and acts on the non-material vitality of the person. The way it acts follows certain laws, as Hahnemann discovered. The vitality has to perceive the remedy during its primary action and then respond to it. The response to a 200c potency can take as long as 6 months or a year before it reaches completion in chronic cases. A 1m, 10m, 50m or mm can take 6 months to two years to run their courses in people with the miasmatic levels that exist today(the time varies depending on the individual and whether the case, and its corresponding remedy, is slow/energetic in its mode of action).
It is like the hand in the bucket of cold water analogy. Only when the hand is removed from the cold can the benefits of the heat that is being produced by the vitality be felt.
Only by working within these laws does any true restoration/regeneration occur.
What is the need for prescribing multiple doses or multiple remedies, or for me to consider what a prescriber has found when practising in these ways? Either a remedy is right, and we wait for the whole transformation of the suffering person, or it is wrong (as indicated by the appearance of significant new symptoms) and we must antidote it immediately.
With the right remedy we see an initial aggravation followed by a curative action. With a wrong remedy we see the person having an initial amelioration, as the primary action of the stronger dissimilar medicine suppresses the symptoms, followed by an aggravation, as the symptoms re-emerge. The prescriber who does not understand the principles then repeats the remedy, trying to re-create the action first seen. Sometimes another wrong remedy is given, again looking to use its primary action. This creates total chaos, as it is then impossible to know what is going on in the person. Cases treated in this way come nowhere near restoration/regeneration.
At worst, repeating a remedy before the response is complete pushes the vitality back into the state that it is trying to leave, locking the internal person between the two states. This is extremely difficult/impossible to antidote.
I know that it can be difficult to understand what is happening in a case during the action of a remedy, and that it is often easy to think that another remedy is required too early. Much depends on how deeply the homoeopath has understood the case in the first place, before making the prescription.
Only when the action of the remedy is entirely complete is the picture of the deeper miasmatic level and the next remedy revealed. Amazingly, this almost always corresponds to a remedy listed by Kent as "follows well".
I know many might disagree, but this is what Homoeopathy is. This is its logic, which is based on deductive reasoning and the experience of provings and clinical cases. This is its method, the only one by which remedies can be used to undo deep chronic miasmatic disease, which is the only way any real restoration/regeneration can come about.
Potencies are being used today in many ways, but those ways are not Homoeopathy. They are not logical and they cannot bring about cure on a chronic miasmatic level. They act in the ways outlined above, exactly as Hahnemann said they would in paragraphs 30-40 of the Organon.



[This message has been edited by Martha (edited 05 October 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Martha (edited 05 October 1999).]

I'm curious - why are you restricting your searches on successful cases of tissue regeneration to single dose classical method only - does the patient care what method you've used if they get better? Or perhaps you're already learned about the evidence of other methods and simply curious about whether the classical method can ever work in these cases?

What I have found difficult to understand is how very few 'classical only' homoepaths seem to have any knowledge of real cures by other methods. Now I see that it is perhaps because the question is framed in such a way that one could not possibly find any evidence to the contrary. How could your belief ever be challenged? This is exactly like the psychoanalysts in the community of psychologists and psychotherapists I have come from. One way the only way, psychoanalysis - and yet how many people do they actually cure on a day to day basis? How sad to find homoeopathy as closed to other possibilities as the allopaths are to us.

It is an interesting discussion, but I think the real question is, are there ANY true cures by other methods? There is certainly a lot of palliation and suppression going on.
What is sickness and what is cure? Is it possible that there are definite patterns to the way people become sick, and the way by which they might be cured? Hahnemann found principles at work and evidence to suggest that there are. From what I have seen, the discovery is incomparable.
Surely it is time to leave the centuries of trial and error behind us. They have not worked. Humanity is getting sicker, both emotionally and physically.
It is not about belief, or about Homoeopathy being closed; it is about Homoeopathy retaining its purity as an exact science which can really undo generations of developing miasma and bring people to cure.
All over the world, we find multiple-remedy and multiple-dose prescribing and remedies being given alongside allopathic medicines, none of which are Homoeopathy and none of which will bring about cure. Through these practices, the whole science of Homoeopathy is discredited.