Snoopy -

Rather than taking off on so many tangents in Austin's thread, I'm picking up questions directed to me in this new thread.

In response to your last question, I have taken a variety of remedies, mostly liquid, but some dry, mostly single remedies but a number of combination remedies also. I have taken them for the flu or a head cold, for things like moodiness and oversensivity (sound familiar, Barb?). I have had some success relieving all of the above. Aggs are followed by amelioration. Also, until recently when taking remedies, I dosed incorrectly, followed none of the guidelines I've learned about here, and yet still found the process helpful and interesting. Your assumption, Snoopy, was correct, that I prescribed on the basis of psychological assessment, and that this resulted in incorrect prescribing, although the partial actions I achieved have nevertheless been helpful.

In fact, these results make me wonder why its so bad, in a way, to prescribe on a partial case, for example, based on psychological symptoms: if a remedy has a similarity to a single symptom, especially if that similarity is striking, and if it produces improvement, what's wrong with that? The similimum will provide a broader action, as opposed to a "partial relief," but what's wrong with partial relief, even if we know its not "as good as it can get?" On reflection, I think I might be tempted to prescribe on such a partial basis, using only psychological symptoms, assuming I could find a good match to those symptoms; and if this method produced useful results in relief of psychological symptoms, isn't that not such a bad thing? Or are there risks involved in such a process, that are avoided if one finds the similimum? I am stating a speculative opinion and need advice on this.

Beyond this, since coming to the BB, I have learned to respect classical rules of prescribing, and my ambition is to get to a point at which I can find the similimum; I am feeling very patient about this, though, and feel I am slowly, doggedly pursuing this objective, though I may not even begin to get close to that objective for months or, more likely, years. Still, I continue to feel that there are legitimate and useful applications for combination remedies and other modifications to classical practice (aside from my question regarding partial prescriptions). I compare this to psychoanalysis: there is classical psychoanalysis, and then there are applications of analytic principles, for example, to marital counseling, treatment of borderline conditions, or the interpretation of literature. None of the latter count as psychoanalysis nor do they accomplish what analysis can accomplish, but their results may nevertheless be useful. In practice, I expect that when, or if, the day comes I prescribe homeopathically, I will need to satisfy myself, when I depart from classical procedures, that I am clear as to what situations call for which intervention: actually, I do a bit of this type of thing now, when I decide whether to treat by just talking, or instead add a recommendation to eliminate dairy products, or refer to a naturopath for various treatments, or, more recently, consider referring to a homeopath for classical treatment. I feel at this time that my first task must be to master classical methods, which are the touchstone and baseline against which modifications must be measured; will I avoid "applied" homeopathy? I don't know, but probably not, I think: similarly, even though I break all of Freud's rules when doing marital therapy, I feel pretty good when I help save a marriage; besides, Freud's rules were not designed for marital therapy. And Hahnemann's rules were not designed for ... ? That's the question I will need to be able to answer when or if I become active in prescribing.

BTW, doctorleela, my potential referral has not panned out, but I expect others to come along, though I am unsure how easy it will be to make such a referral. I have only recently become competent making referrals to a friend who is a naturopath, and still need to clarify for myself what types of situations call for a specifically homeopathic intervention. But I'll be in touch as things develop.

Bach

[ 26. October 2002, 15:06: Message edited by: bwv11 ]

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

what is the diff between classical and applied homeopathy?

thanks

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

Maybe I'm making up terms, but by classical I mean "according to Hahnemann": single dose, minimum dose, similimum - no combination remedies etc. By "applied" I probably mean "derivative," that is, using homeopathically prepared remedies but not following "classical" rules of prescribing--this would include things like combination remedies or prescribing prophylactically or prescribing on the basis of psychological symptoms only. I am not trying to distinguish between different "classical" schools, e.g., Kentian or Boenninghausen, 5th edition vs. 6th edition, etc., all of whom may claim to be the "true" heirs to Hahnemann's "classical" tradition.

[ 27. October 2002, 15:45: Message edited by: bwv11 ]

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Dear Bach,

I'm going to jump in here and recommed that not only you, but anybody who wants to get a solid footing in homeopathy, go to www.minimum.com and order the book, HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE IN THE HOME by Jonathan Breslow. It is a course, which you can actually take, with Breslow, as you can officially sign up with him and make him your private instructor, or you can just learn on your own using the book; but what it does is teach you how to take a case, select the rubrics and prescribe.

You'll learn for instance that there is a hierarchy we look for, we don't just look for the symptoms in a case. The "onset" and the "etiology" (cause) of the complaint are right at the top of our consideration, and, to use an example we're all familiar with here, there's the case of Rima's son: Rima wrote in to us saying her son had headaches everyday and what remedy could she use? This was a clear case of needing to know the etiology and onset. The etiology was a flu. The onset was slow. We needed a flu remedy with a slow onset which best matched his striking symptoms--chills, fever, sleepiness, and headache. Without basic training in homeopathy, how would we have known this? We'd have repertorized the boy's headache symptoms--they were irrelevant!
Do you see what I mean? Beginners do get results with homeopathy, but few of us would be satisfied with modest results and not knowing the formula.

Snoopy

Dear Snoopy -

Thanks for stepping in, as I hoped you would. Your recommendation has made its way promptly and directly onto my reading list, and will become part of my training program. I reiterate, I am working on this pretty slowly, for a couple of reasons: I'm too busy to be able to devote hours every day to intensive studies, as I used to do with Freud, many full moons ago; and, I find that I learn best when I first get a sense of the "gestalt," the major themes and issues of a subject, and then fill in the details. And that takes awhile.

In any case, your comments are not surprising and in fact are very welcome. I still would like to repeat my question from above, however: assuming incomplete and inadequate case taking, as might well occur in my situation, if I were to take a case on purely psychological grounds--what if a remedy matched the emotional symptoms of my patient very well, and I did not look any further, that is, in the direction of the similimum. Wouldn't the remedy act in creating an artificial illness that reflected those emotional symptoms, and in doing so provide a homeopathic amelioration, even though that amelioration might be more symptom focussed, as opposed to treating the whole person or the whole of the vital force than would the similimum?

I am aware that a "yes" answer on your part would put you in the position of endorsing a "derivative" methodology that, by definition, fails to conform to Hahnemann's standards. I don't suggest that this is "true, or classical homeopathy," but is there anything outright dangerous about it, or foolhardy, or stupid?

Bach
----------------
stupid? well, you know, I've been called worse.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Snoopy -

Ooooops. I think you already answered my question.

I take from this that, yes, partial case taking on psychological grounds alone may result in symptomatic relief, though not as far reaching as a remedy chosen on the basis of a better case taking and better understanding of the elements involved in selecting remedies. I'm thinking that, even so, if I can relieve anxiety with a second-rate choice of remedy, what's the problem?

To answer my own question, the problem is that a better chosen remedy will also ameliorate subsidiary characteristics of the anxiety, as well as somatic components, creating a broader, deeper, and more lasting curative response.

Warm wishes,

Bach
-------------
student of homeopathy(!)

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Dear Earnest,

Like you, I also started in the middle, so to speak, eventually finding my way back to the beginning with Jonathan Breslow, so that I could feel more competent in what I was doing.

Yes, you can treat psychological problems acutely.
We have a Thuja patient on the BB--Call Me Sam--
who carries Aconite around with him because he has panic attacks. When you have a panic attack, there isn't much else we need to know about you, take your Aconite! Yes, homeopathy works this way.

Often though, there may be 3, 4 or 5 remedies known to treat an acute complaint, like anxiety, for instance, and that's when we do have to know how to take an acute case: What does the anxiety feel like? What caused it? What is it making you do? Are you thirsty? Because some remedies will be pacing back and forth and others will be sitting still and not moving and others will be calling their friends on the phone and so on and so you have to find the remedy that best mimics what the patient is doing, and there are specialty books in homeopathy that would cover, for instance, just psychology, so you could find out what the remedies are for common psychological states. Check minimum.com again for a review of those books.

Snoopy

Snoopy,

Excuse me for a third post in a row, but the additional question arises for me: what if a remedy profile ( x) includes a very dramatic symptom that reflects a symptom in the patient, and which is not found, or at least not to the same degree, in other remedies? Doesn't that suggest that remedy x could be useful in this case; even assuming a full case taking and primary utilization of a similimum, couldn't remedy x be used as an "intercurrent" (am I using this word correctly?)to provide targeted improvement in the "dramatic" (rare, unusual, etc.) symptom?

Thanks for reviewing this.

Earnestly yours,

Bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Bwv11, you are great

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

Goodness, Cuty, I blush. What a nice pick-me-up. Thank you.

Bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.