This will give you some understanding. Basically, the way I view this issue is that there are two major processes involved in the homoeopathic prescription, where one has to be careful. One, the case analysis; two, the remedy understanding. What has happened lately is that under the pretext of refreshing thoughts, some new case analysis methods have been introduced which are far from being scientific. For instance, the case analysis based on the theme of dreams and delusions. I stress that, it is important to consider the repeatedly seen dreams of the patients, in the prescribing totality. But, it is ridiculous to make speculative interpretations of the dreams and delusions, and base the prescription on such a fantasy. This is unscientific.

When it comes to interpretation, it tends to become quite subjective and personal. For instance, every prescriber can offer a different analysis to every dream theme, therefore leading eventually to a wide range of remedy suggestions. This could certainly be harmful.

Secondly, the remedy understanding. Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, Kent and other masters understood
remedies more or less in black and white. But somehow, the new trends of incorporating the study of the materia medica with mythology, symbolism, dream-proving, story-telling and so on, have introduced a lot of unproven data, which I am afraid, will take homoeopathy far from universal acceptance.

__________________
Hafeez
Forum Pk

This para will sufficient for us to open our eyes if we are interested in promoting homeopathy on scientific bases.

I have heard the stories that one prover is administered a remedy and another person sits in the next room to 'receive' the effect of that remedy, with intent to 'prove' it ! I read a report in an American journal of a teacher administering a remedy to a patient. The teacher then declares that not only the patient who was administered the remedy would get cured, but all others in the neighborhood who required the same remedy, but not being administered the remedy, would also get cured ! Isn't it outrageous ? How can the homoeopaths tolerate this kind of teaching? If we go to the W.H.O. or Prince Charles, with this kind of development in homoeopathy they would surely withdraw all their support.

I strongly feel that the time is changing. There is a lot more awareness and homoeopaths can not be fooled anymore with such fantasies and theorising by classical type homeopaths.

__________________
Hafeez
Forum Pk

Dr. Mas,

I agree with much of what you say in these last two posts. However, I do not agree that Hahnemann viewed the remedy pictures in black and white. While Kent perceived the remedies as being more or less static, Hahnemann’s view was a dynamic one. Hahnemann was also very much an empiricist and was interested only in what could be verified with the senses. In my opinion, he would not have approved of all the speculation, subjectivity and interpretation that passes for homeopathy these days. Homeopathy has become a kind of psychoanalysis where the practitioner attempts to fix the body by treating the “disorder” of the mind.

Nevertheless, the fact that things like this happen...is a fact of the energy nature of the universe. Its like me having a stiff neck and all the clients I have on that day have stiff necks...of I'm going through issues with a parent...and clients with the same issue are drawn to me at that time..or I draw them to me. There must be a certain level of consciousness...when consciousness is in a state of movement..not static...from remedy or otherwise...where the universe reflects us. So also, when consciousness reaches a certain level of movement that isn't filled with old issues from this life or another..perception of "facts" cannot be separated from mental understanding. And this is why people like sankaran can so easily SEE...get...understand...The difficulty lies in not knowing...being deceived about ones own perceptions...which is simpley stated...just neurosis. And, yes, I've been smoking pot.

Carol,
I'm on THE FLOOR.

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Carol,

I understand what you say about not being able to separate perceptions of "facts" from mental understanding. However, I think it's important to try to do so. In general semantics, we speak of this in terms of "orders of abstraction". The first order of abstraction is what the person experiences on the silent level, that is the actual experience before it becomes interpreted into the symbols of language. The second order would be a simple description of whatever the person is feeling or experiencing. From there, interpretation and analysis can ensue as we climb to higher and higher orders. Here is an example taken from my textbook:

The author goes on to give higher and higher orders of abstraction with this example, including statements such as, "Brown's stenographer is letting her work pile up on her." In response to this he says, "This is an inferential statement: it draws much more from our accumulated stock of memories, interpretations, and prejudices than from a reliable abstracting of what we see."

I know this is probably tedious to those who are not familiar with general semantics but I think it's extremely important, and has profound implications for the practice of homeopathy. When working with someone, I purposely stay on a low order of abstraction and use MM's that do this also, such as Hahnemann, Clarke, T.F. Allen, and Phatak. This approach is usually adequate and allows me to work successfully with the most difficult chronic miasms. I think it would be good for all students to start out learning this way and then perhaps move on later to the more abstract thinkers such as Vithoulkas and Sankaran. I think that Vithoulkas is successful because he has a foundation in the basics and is drawing on that information as well. I personally don't care for his view of MM because it involves too much psychoanalysis, interpretation and generalization, but I have found insight in a few cases from his descriptions of remedies. Although, I would NEVER view the person as a "remedy type" as that approach is too fixed and static. (Even Vithoulkas admits that the "constitutional" approach isn't appropriate for chronic cases or those involving damage from treatment.)

When we unconsciously use inference, speculation and interpretation to perceive the symptom picture, we are diminishing our ability to discern the disease indicators clearly, thus rendering ourselves less effective as practitioners. As a result, we are not fulfilling our highest mission to end the suffering of humanity.

[ 25. September 2002, 02:21: Message edited by: Tomi Conner ]

I feel the biggest flaw in our education is understanding remedy reactions. Inexperienced homoeopaths (and inexperience seems to bear little relation to how long you have been in practice) often mistakenly believe after administering a remedy that any reaction is a good reaction. And if there has been sufficient disturbance caused then it must be a "healing crisis". This is manifoldly untrue.

If a remedy is the simillimum all symptoms will pass through with amelioration quite quickly. If the dosage or potency is too strong there will be an initial (similar) aggravation followed by amelioration.

A dissimilar aggravation occurs when the wrong remedy has been prescribed and new and troublesome symptoms appear that were not there initially. If the aggravation is too severe to let the case settle on its own, these new symptoms as well as the original symptoms must be antidoted with a remedy that covers the whole disturbance. Boenninghausen's Concordances are highly useful here.

Accessary symptoms are similar to 'proving' symptoms and are produced by over-repetition or too strong a dose of a partially similar remedy. They are symptoms that do not belong to the patient but are produced by the remedy itself. If the remedy is close enough to the centre of the case, these accessary symptoms/aggravations if not too severe should not interfere with the eventual cure.

A partial simillimum will produce amelioration of symptoms in one or more areas of the case up to a certain point in time. When a partially similar remedy is repeated too often, regardless of low or high potency, it will begin to produce accessary symptoms which are counterproductive to the ultimate cure. There is the risk here of engrafting remedy side-symptoms on to the patient. Many cases are lost at this point because these accessary symptoms are wrongly perceived as new symptoms of a new deeper layer. In fact they are practitioner-induced symptoms that require skilful zigzag prescribing to eventuate in cure. Hahnemann and Boenninghausen were experts in zigzag prescribing because they had such a limited Materia Medica to work with. Hahnemann's experiments with the LM potency scale were an attempt to overcome this phenomenon.

A healing crisis occurs when an outlet is found to rid the body of a suppressed eruption or discharge (often to correct some deeper organ system mistunement). The symptoms will follow the Direction of Cure and should not be mistaken for an "acute episode" requiring a new "acute remedy".

Chris,

You said: This is exactly what happened in my case (although there were many other flaws, imo). On the second visit, the practitioner learned that I had had a heavier than normal period (mine had always been quite light: psora = scanty discharges). So, a more knowledgeable homeopath would've realized that this was an unhomeopathic or dissimilar aggravation indicating that the remedy was not the simillimum. Instead, he surmised that since the remedy did something it must be correct, and he proceeded to give it for another year and a half or so in ever increasing potencies, thinking all the time that he had the simillimum.

P.S. I think it's important to add that, while my practitioner's inability to properly assess remedy reactions was largely to blame for this homeopathic mishap, it wasn't the only problem. The case was never properly taken to begin with. My original point on this thread was that the practitioner stayed at a “high order of abstraction" throughout the 3+ years of treatment and that made it difficult for him to ever have any real idea of what was actually going on with me.

My point is that this is how students are trained in homeopathy. There is much speculation and interpretation that passes for objectivity.

Tomi,

I don't know what the answer is. I'd like to see clinical classes integrated into homoeopathic education right from day one. Not left till near the end when students have their heads full of several complex theories and are scrambling to find solid ground on which to base their cases. Keep it simple, integrate it, and practice it, then build on it.

I believe if you don't understand the meaning of remedy reactions, your case management and your application of whatever method you employ ain't gonna be worth zip.