Carol & others,
Symmetry of a case, of any given natural disease, simply means that no stress is laid on "any particular factor at the expense of the disease picture as a whole. This does not however mean that all symptoms stand on the same level, for certain effects must be more prominent than others, yet part and parcel of them."
(from forward of Boger's Synoptic Key)

If we look to traditional provings, we see that alterations of state exist in all areas..mind, head, stomach, sleep..etc.

Unfortunately, due to translations upon interpretations of Organon, the modern approach has arrived at the false understanding that mental/emotional aspects of disease are characteristic & therefore usualy prevelant in any given disease.

Here are a few examples of classical characteristics and the accompaning qualifying descriptions of Slicea:

Generalities;
He easily takes cold, especialy from uncovering the head or feet.
Nightly sticking in all joints.
Ebullitions of blood & thirst from drinking wine.
The symptoms are intensified at night & when the weather changes.

Head:
Throbbing & pounding, most severe in forehead & vertex, with chilliness.

Ext head:
Foul dry crusty, buring or sticking in occiput & behind ears, when scratched it festers.

Respirations:
Short and panting, when walking rapidly and during manual labour.

Cough:
Dry in evening & night; during day with copiuous expectoration, or frothy blood.

Fever;
Universal heat, with strong thirst in afternoon, evening and through whole night, allowing him no rest.

(Each above individual symptoms verified as characteristic by cross reference with TT 1846 and B/B Characteristics MM.)

For example a keynote of Silicea (Keynotes were introduced by Lippe)is keenly sensitive.
An example of an 'essence' of Silicea is 'lack of grit.'
Before you know it, 'homeopaths' are perscribing Silicea for to anyone who has seen a few rough times...

oh here's another keynote of silicea from Boger's Synpotic Key; every hurt festers
You can see (from imagination) how this potentialy has turned to be the stuff of "victim" remedy, (but such is not a disease symptom according to Hahnemann.)

[ 24 January 2002: Message edited by: louise price ]</p>

Hi Louise,

Look, we ALL have mums and dads.

But some people have set up relationships with these figures in their lives which create problems for them--all over their worlds.

When those people come to you for help, you will be able to see quite clearly that those relationships are problematic. Believe me: your patient will practically SCREAM out these symptoms at you. There is no way you'd miss them, no way you'd think they are not "part of the disease". Unless you willfully chose to ignore them.

As Hahnemann illustrates and advises: just use your eyes, ears, nose, your sensitivity and all your senses--plus your mind--and take in what is clearly presented in front of you.

If the patient gives you numerous examples of the problematic nature of his/her relationship with his mother or father, are you going to sit there and IGNORE IT because you are afraid you can't trust what you're observing, and you think other people will call you "biased"?

Are you going to ignore someone who tells you, repeatedly, in a number of different ways including literally, that they have a problem with their mother or father getting in the way of what they set out to do? Even when they give you a million examples? They tell you about every aspect of their lives--their relationships with friends, spouses or lovers, co-workers, children...and in every story they give, they tell you about another problem with their mom or their dad...are you going to just say,

"Isn't that interesting, how that comes up over and over again...oh, but I don't want to be judgemental here...I better just repertorize that his hair is falling out..."

If you have a patient who says many times (though he or she isn't aware of it--but you hear it, and you see him or her right there before you, using the phrase 15 or 16 times in an hour's conversation),

"I really love my spouse!"...

though they tell you they spend a great deal of time working far away from home, doing activities which are solitary, or enjoyed with other people and never include the spouse? Plus they add a sprinkle of critical denouncement of things their spouse seems to enjoy or appreciate...

Do you conclude that this patient does not truly love his/her spouse, though he/she feels he should, as evidenced by his "protestations"--even when his/her descriptions of his/her actions simply don't bear this out?

Or do you sit there and tell yourself to just ignore this, as its "just an emotional symptom"?

Do you continue to ignore it, even though you can clearly ascertain from what the patient has been telling you about himself/herself and the way he/she conducts his/her life that they truly wish they were not married to that spouse, and that this great expense of energy in pretense is costing him/her full health?

I don't. I make a note of the symptom, and if it is a big deal in the case, I prioritize it. Then I repertorize it. I then follow up with materia medica research. I'll often use Scholten and Sankaran, just as I'll often use one of the encyclopedias, Boericke, and Morrison. Hold on to your hat now, Louise, sometimes I even reach for...Whitmont! I know you don't want to even contemplate that sacrilege.

More often than not, Scholten and Sankaran's evaluations fit very well, and support or round out the other MM information that I have. Then, if the remedy fits, I give it, and wait to see what happens.

I'd hate to think what would happen if I had to do without any one of those sources of information. I'd really feel as though I'd be operating without my eyes...working with less knowledge than I need. I dislike doing anything if I feel that way--as it just feels wrong to me.

You can do whatever you feel works for you with your patients. No one has ever said "don't use the basics, just disregard them...read this new stuff by Scholten cause its better..." For one thing, Scholten is brilliant...but so far, he's only working with the periodic table of elements. Last time I looked, homeopathy listed a number of plant and animal remedies as possibilities too.

What I would love to know is why people feel the need to slag someone else who uses something no less effective...just a little different.

It is boringly counterproductive to homeopathy's well-being.

Homeopathy's already got many well-funded, politically powerful enemies...but they don't have to lift a finger to destroy homeopathy. They can just sit back and watch us destroy ourselves because we can't agree that the research homeopaths conduct and contribute is valid--we just have to use these arguments to divide ourselves. Over and over again, too: as if we can't even learn from our own past.


Divina

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

Hallo to all
One can indeed put new interpretations on symptoms of a given remedy.
The beginner in homeopathy should be forgiven to adopt these pictures, themes and essences, as they are easy to comprehend, freely accessible and seem to make a lot of sense.
The true homeopath , being fully acquainted with the principles and rules laid out by the founder, will quickly realize, that these new interpretations are lacking in the one ore other principle.

As they are ‘’interpretations’’ and not symptoms arrived by homeopathic provings, they don’t fulfil the par,; 144 in the Organon, which reads.:

From such materia medica everything that is conjectural, all that is mere assertion or imaginary should be strictly excluded; everything should be the pure language of nature and honestly interrogated.

The true homeopath therefore will place no trust in such ,,interpretations’’ in his endeavour to fulfil his high and only mission to restore the sick to health, to cure as it is termed.

Hans Weitbrecht
Homeopath

__________________
cure by symptom similarity!<br /><a href="http://www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/" target="_blank">www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/</a>

Divina,

can I make it clear, yet again, that participation in a discussion here, (in this case in reply to the question 'what do you think about new interpretaions of Silicea?'), does not automaticaly mean that I am slagging, bashing or trashing anybody. Please note that I've not said anything derogatory about the character or personality of either gentleman. Neither am I telling anyone what choices they should make.

We are free, at least that is my expectation, to question the validity of any work here, without being accused of bad intention, of being the enemy, or indeed of ignoring the suffering of our patients, or of being one who is afraid of being seen as biased...or whatever else you might assume; I am certainly not afraid of any of the above.

The fact that certain work is speculative is not an attack.

However I accept that I have no power over your thought process, what you say & assume.
Equaly I know that I have not power to change peoples relationships, enviroments and circumstances, with homeopathic remedies. (Although I am very willing & able to talk such problems through in an attempt to help in any way I can.)
When the allopaths medicate on the grounds of circumstancial problems, we are the first to observe the ludicrious nature of this act. Granted the drugs are very different, but the mistake would seem to be ironicaly similar.

The conscience of each of us, as well as our study, experience, influences; is the ultimate decider in how we practice. If you are genuinely interested in how mine works in relation to homeopathy, I stick to the principles, treat disease, & respect the life choices of my patients as being their own.

Louise
ps...I don't wear a hat.