I thought it was best to start a new topic rather than take up all that space in that other one. The poor cat needs time devoted to her, not to our discussion over a completely seperate topic!

Dr Mujahid,

we seem to be misunderstanding each others points I feel. You seem to keep asking me how did I prescribe Calc-phos for a patient who had the "peculiar" symptoms of malaria. Then you go ahead and mention the "common" symptoms of malaria.

Hahnemann taught us to prescribe only on the symptoms peculiar to the disease, not the symptoms common to the disease. The most peculiar symptoms are the ones that have nothing to do with the disease ie. the state of the patient including their mental state. Not everyone likes to use the mentals, and I use them about 50% of the time. So the fact that the patient had malaria did not change my prescription, or alter what I did in any way. As I stated on the previous thread, ANY remedy can cure ANY disease, as long as the peculiars in the case are covered by the remedy. Not the common symptoms in the case.

When I came to my choice of Calc-p, I confirmed my choice by studying Ananda Zaren's essay on the remedy. And what Scholten did not cover with his analysis, Zaren did with her clinical experiences of the remedy. So I felt confident at that point to give the remedy.

My use of Scholten's method for determining a remedy is not strictly Hahnemannian, and I accept that some homoeopaths and students have a problem accepting it. However, I must point out that Scholten is taught in many Homoeopathic Courses now, including the one I teach, which is a Bachelor in Health Science (Homoeopathy). This was agreed to by the national association members in my country, whose members are staunch advocates of Boenninghausen's method.

Although Scholten's diagnostic method is relatively new (despite Kent toying with the idea, and Sankaran exploring the same idea in his books), he has used recorded his clinical experiences and cures. Since many of the symptoms we use are clinical (perhaps 50%), using the information on the remedies this way does not stray far from the path. He may have said to himself "This patient needs a remedy that combines both Natrum and bromium", but he has used it successfully and recorded his cures. This clinical evidence is admissable, as much as anyone's is.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

Wel put David J.K. It took me an hour or so to read the whole confliction.

__________________
KN

DavidJK,

First of all, I would like to ask you, how you declare your patient a malerial patient?

Was she complaining about the following symptoms

The primary symptom of all types of malaria is the "malaria ague" (chills and fever). In most cases, the fever has three stages, beginning with uncontrollable shivering for an hour or two, followed by a rapid spike in temperature (as high as 106&deg;F), which lasts three to six hours. Then, just as suddenly, the patient begins to sweat profusely, which will quickly bring down the fever. Other symptoms may include fatigue,sever headache and nausea and vomitng. As the sweating subsides, the patient typically feels exhausted and falls asleep. In many cases, this cycle of chills, fever, and sweating occurs every other day, or every third day, and may last for between a week and a month. Those with the chronic form of malaria may have a relapse as long as 50 years after the initial infection.

Then why did you oversight all these symptoms and prescribe CALC PHOS. Which is no more near to Malerial Patient.

I think your patient was not malerial patient.

__________________
<b>All the best<br />Khokhar<br />(CAM Expert)</b>

Hans, then the question I would put to you is, if we choose a remedy based on clinical symptoms (those not reported in the provings but verified by cures in clinic), are we no longer practicing Hahnemannian homoeopathy?

Also, if I use a remedy with a very small proving, perhaps based on one or two peculiar physical characteristics, and the remedy then goes on to cure some mental condition not mentioned in the proving, would it be inappropriate to pencil those symptoms in as symptoms of the remedy?

The symptoms Scholten uses are those taken from the provings of the seperate components - he uses symptoms taken from well proven remedies such as Phosphorous, Sulphur etc. His claim is that a substance that contains that element will share those characteristics. Is this really a radical idea?

We know that any remedy that contains Sulphur tends to be hot, and tends to suffer from skin complaints of a particular character.

We know that remedies that contain an Acid has profound exhaustion.

We know that the Natrum remedies tend to be closed.

We know the Magnesium remedies share qualities of cramping and emotional instability, and that at least two have strong issues around anger/pacifism and divorce of their parents.

There are many characteristics of remedies that are used for prescription that were never taken from a proving, but were observations made by practitioners. Kent calls Mag-carb the remedy for orphans - no-one was made and orphan in a proving.

Remedies can cure pathology, which is only a clinical observation. Provings are not carried through to the point of pathology - people did not keep taking Conium until they got tumors. Because "cancer that arises from a contusion" is not part of the proving, would it therefore be inadmissable as a symptom of the remedy? Yet it is a key characteristic of Conium.

Scholten claims to have followed his cured patients for several years, with no or rare reoccurance of symptoms, and no further complication of their health/disease outside of what any patient may be prone to (exciting causes, miamatic eruptions). I have seen his paper cases and some video cases. I don't believe he is lying.

Nothing replaces a proving - it is the foundation of what we do. Scholten's claim is that by looking at the provings already done, certain things can be inferred about other substances not yet proven. He went about attempting to prove this theory by experimentation, and found that he was able to produce the same sort of cures he made with well-proven remedies. He acknowledges that parts of his work are still theoretical, and asked that others attempt to use it and see what they find.

I absolutely agree that students and new practitioners should cut their teeth on the basic principles before getting involved in this sort of prescribing, if they ever get involved. I don't teach my students this method, and advise them to avoid using it throughout student clinic. It is open to abuse and can easily lead to bad (lazy) habits.

But I did in fact take up his challenge, as I have said on many other threads. And I have seen excellent cures, according to the basic principles. These cases have not been suppressed, nor palliated, nor have I created new (heterogenic) illness to temporarily disguise their previous disease. These patients aggravate in the beginning, sometimes experience reappearance of old symptoms, then obtain full relief from most, if not all of their symptoms.

In other words, the same response I get from the patients given remedies based on a traditional analysis.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

At last Dr. Mujahid succeeded in compeling Dr. David Kempson to start a new thread. I learnt very good point from David. He is genious.

Thank you very much for so many private replies. It is always not necessary to reply on this board. Some time questions itself has answers too. :razz:

__________________
<b><a href="mailto:drsalim@inbox.com.pk">drsalim@inbox.c om.pk</a></b>

I do not understand why people think that what has been written by Hahnemann is the last and final word in Homeopathy. Hahnemann changed his own theories many times during his life time. He changed them with every new edition of organon. And I sincerely believe that if he had lived for another 10/20 years, he would have modified his own theories again - probably many times over.

I do not say what he has written is wrong, but there are many loop holes in it. And there is scope for improvement. There is scope for new ideas. Why do people have such closed minds to not see the potential of imbibing newer ideas that Homeopathy has? We call Homeopathy a 'science'. And every science has a basic property that it evolves with time. Then why can not Homeopathy evolve with time?
We should be happy that atleast people are coming up with new ideas. Ideas which are worth testing. Be it Sankran's work on delusions or Sholten's work on new remedies.

If Mendel was able to describe the properties of missing elements in the periodic table based on the properties of elements in the same row or column, why can not we try to find out the field of action of newer unproved mineral remedies that way. Atleast we can give it a try. The eleemnts Mendel said will be found, were found. Although some properties were modified. Same can happen to these new medicines too. In provings we may come up with the propsed symptoms. If not, we can discard the symptoms that do not tally. Why so much fuss over this issue?

And as far as the issue for prescribing for malaria or any other disease for that matter is concerned, one must understand that in Homeopathy we treat the person and not just his/her disease. Provings do not bring out diseaes or pathology. They bring out sensations, which we corelate with various diseases according to our clinical knowledge. Ultimately we have to see the 'state' of person, the centralised disturbance which predisposes the person to various illnesses. You cut the root, the tree will die. You keep cutting the branches, you create problems for the patient.
When you are treating a 'person', the name of his/her disease becomes immaterial. The mental and physical generals are much better indicators of the patients 'state'. There are so many medicines that cover the common symptoms of various diseases. There is no way anybody can prescribe successfully based on the common symptoms. It is not necessary to understand the disease if you understand the person. If the particulars and local symptoms are also covered by a medicine along with the mental and physical generals, well and good. But if particulars are not well covered, it is much safe to prescribe on the generals. The generals are produced in nearly all the provers. The 'aggravation from motion' in bryonia is produced by most provers. But one prover may manifest it in knee, other in throat, another in head and so on. If you do not find a particular in a medicine which covers the genrals then it can be assumed that probably none of the provers were sensitive to produce that specific particular. With more provers we may get more particulars while retaining the genrals. And that also is the reason for getting so many clinical symptoms in our books. Any medicine can cure any disease as long as the 'state' of the person is covered.

What david is doing is that he is not restricting himself to any ideologies. He is open to new ideas and brave enough to test them. This is the attitude that every homeopath should have!

[ 02. August 2002, 08:43: Message edited by: dr_bhatia ]

__________________
Dr. B<br /><br /><a href="http://www.doctorbhatia.com" target="_blank">www.DoctorBhatia.com</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.hpathy.com" target="_blank">www.Hpathy.com</a><br />Homeopathy for Everyone

David,
You have my sympathy. BUt I fear you're hitting your head against a stone wall.

As Dr. B rightly put it - closed minds and shortsighted homeopathy stuck in the 20th century - for fear of losing sight of Hahnemann and the ORganon. (God forbid!)

Everyone seems to feel that they know exactly what HAhnemann would have said about the developments and wonderful new ideas in homeopathy today.

I wonder if Hahnemann was really alive today - and he said - KEnt had a wonderful gift at prescribing, Vitoulkas has really taken homeopathy ahead, Sankaran is going a great job unfolding the secrets in the MAteria MEdica, Scholton is brilliant for putting forth wonderful new scientific ideas (which will certainly need good clinical verification and consistent proving to hold them in stead for the future) -- it would silenced these self styled critics. The only problem is Hahnemann had to die without giving them his stamp of approval.

So inspite of the critics, homeopathy will continue to evolve as an art and as a science (we got so many brilliant minds interested in and devoted to it today), without at all losing sight of Hahnemann or the Organon as a solid foundation, as without this, what is homeopathy?

Warm regards,
doctorleela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Dear David

Thanks for letting us in on your thinking. We all have, and this is important, our own personal views and experiences and in common: Homeopathy as a splendid tool.

You mentioned, that you use the mental state in 50% of your cases without revealing to us what your criteria are for the inclusion in your disease-picture.
I follow in my casework closely the organon, where the ‘’change of mood’’ which goes along the disease forms part of the disease. This strictly excludes the mood as a decisive symptom when it is unaltered since before the onset of the disease.
In this context it is noteworthy how much the translations of par.: 211 differ

Boericke

This holds good to such an extent,
That the state of the disposition of the patient
often chiefly determines the selection of the homeopathic remedy,
As being a decidedly characteristic Symptom
which can least of all remain concealed
from the accurately observing physician.

Wenda Brewster O’ Riely

This preeminent importance of the emotional state holds good to such and extent that the patient’s emotional state often tips the scales in the selection of the homoeopathic remedy. This is a decidedly peculiar sign which, among all the signs of disease, can least remain hidden from the exactly observing physician.

Weitbrecht

This goes that far,
That the altered mood of the patient
Often chiefly determines the decision
(for or against a otherwise suitable homeopathic remedy),
As a sign of definite individuality,
Which, being the least hidden( expression of the disease symptoms,)
to the accurately observing physician

You state that clinical evidence presented by Scholten is admissible. I am interested to what?
It cannot be to homeopathy, as the symptoms he prescribes on are not derived from provings. Giving combinations of remedies on alleged properties is a procedure unknown to homeopathy.
Furthermore, how can these Gentlemen show that they have cured other than by the confirmation, that the symptom disappeared under the remedy-action is a proving-symptom.
Claims of cure without the evidence are suppression, unless the evidence of actual cure is established, or likewise, the symptom in question has disappeared by itself, which often would be the more favourable situation for the patient.
We should not get carried away by big words, big shows, big claims---we rather should become fully acquainted to homeopathic principles and rules, and furthermore establish a good working-knowledge of our already vast material medica pura.

As a teacher the responsibility ways heavy to present homeopathic principals unaltered. It is the future faith of many sufferers, which is at stake.
Therefore, I cannot other than vigorously point out what is within homeopathic principles, and what is allopathy.

I cannot agree to the way of reasoning, that, if something is presented as a new discovery/ method under the umbrella of homeopathy it becomes part of homeopathy even if it violates basic homeopathic principles.

The student is not in the position to distinguish what is true and what not. I have seen many cases of homeopathic suppression by want-to–be homeopaths who, with the best of intentions and believe, administered homeopathic remedies repeatedly. They even claimed cure, by prescribing on theories, phantasms, systems, kingdoms, essences, cores, themes, states, where as the truth showed later on, at best, suppressed expressions of latent or active psora. At worst I have seen cases, mixed up to the extend, that I was unable to assist recovery with a well suitable homeopathic remedy.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

ref the scholten method.

in chemistry, when two or three elements are bound together in a compound
eg. nat mur Na+ Cl-
the compound does not have the same chemical properties as the consituent elements -
eg. sodium is a highly reactive metal
chlorine is a pungent gas
table salt is something quite different

the scholten method, as expressed in his first two books, ignores the way in which the properties of materials alter in chemical combinations from their constituent parts.

Dr. Bhattia is that person who came with these words for this first time.

Alas! Why are you late with these words. We are all struggling for to tell every one on net that what ever all written in ORGANON is not correct.

__________________
<b>Dr. M Iqbal (Classical Homeopath)<br />Iqbal Poly Clinic, Main Market, Kharian<br />Phone Clinic: 05771-511337, Residence: 05771-533737 </b>