A girl aged 17years ,for the last two and a half year has been having unbearable pain in her vertex which extends to whole head.Even in this scorching heat when she takes bath,the whole head becomes icy cold and to warm up her head she wraps it with warm clothes and sits a long in the sunshine.She has perspiration in her feet and hands andn esp. in her face during sleep.Her vertex is spongy and extremely painful on touch
pl help her,i prescribed CALC CARB 30 t.d.s for 16 days but of no avail.Should she be given Sil,Psor. or what else

Combined Synthesis - Generals
COLD, becoming cold, head (11)
1 am-c, 1 arg-n, 3 BELL, 2 hep, 1 hyos, 1 led, 1 nux-v, 1 puls, 1 rhus-t, 3 SEP, 3 SIL

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

Combined Synthesis - Head
PAIN, cold, head getting, on (13)
2 aur, 3 BELL, 2 calc, 2 carb-v, 1 hep, 1 hyos, 1 kali-c, 2 led, 1 nat-m, 2 nux-v, 1 puls, 3 SEP, 3 SIL

Unassigned - Head Pain
GENERAL cold becoming, from head, of (15)
2 aur, 3 BELL, 2 calc, 1 carb-an, 2 carb-v, 1 hep, 1 hyos, 1 kali-c, 2 led, 1 nat-m, 2 nux-v, 1 psil, 1 puls, 3 SEP, 3 SIL

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

Thanks Ricky,but others should speak more

HDRTARIQ,

Are you taking a complete history? That will help you in these situations.

Ricky's suggestions are good--

Two other rubric suggestions--

Head, coldness, chilliness, vertex (35)
Head Pain, general, vertex, touch agg. (16)

The only remedy in both rubrics is phos-ac, so other aspects of a complete history--eg., grief, etc., would help to support or exclude this.

Greetings!

You seem to have three uncommon symptoms. Most case reports today don’t contain even one characteristic symptom. Because unambiguous homeotherapeutics is absolutely impossible to do without such symptoms, it speaks well of you.

Indeed, because this site does (as someone recently pointed out to me) seem to attract mostly only students and what Hahnemann generically identified as “beginners” but in two definite classes with specific mistakes named on pp. 121-22 of THE CHRONIC DISEASES, I will emphasize the point. Hering held three uncommon symptoms to be so crucial to correct homeotherapeutics that he: 1) frequently harped on the “three-legged stool” and the “triangular test”; 2) held and often proved that the lives involved in even the gravest of cases can be saved if they exist, because such high-differentiating symptoms in triplicate generally lead to an unambiguous prescription we call the simillimum (“thing most similar”); and 3) wanted the equilateral triangle to be the homeopathic ensign, inside of which is to be written “By This Sign We Conquer.” The equilateral triangle is a very ancient and arcane symbol for Balance, which is traditionally always capitalized when it has reference to this Great Truth about equalization of ideality, practicality and expanding mentality in the natures of both people and societies, so it cannot be overstated how brilliantly insightful we find this observation by Constantine Hering.

I worked on the case because I thought three uncommon symptoms would make it easy and because I know your frustration. It unfortunately did not produce a very helpful result, just suggestions. The following is all I am able to offer you about the case because: 1) I am unwilling to read materia medica on the case; 2) you should do so yourself since it’s your case; 3) I am still too much of a bozo about materia medica to spot the simillimum for her from what is given; and 4) I suspect that she surely has at least one more uncommon symptom with a more developed and helpful rubric than found at Open Fontanelles, which is an uncommon symptom but unhelpful due to its poor repertory development, such that it is advisable to first look for it before prescribing. Another characteristic/uncommon symptom would bring the remedy choice down to the 1-5 typical of three uncommons in a good case. No matter. I offer what I’ve worked out about the case as given.

Spongy vertex appears to indicate an open fontanelle. Confirming that would be my first question about this case. An open fontanelle in a 17-year-old would surely indicate either delayed development (Bar-c) if it never closed or unknown pathology if it reopened. In either case, that is definitely an uncommon, strange, rare and peculiar or characteristic symptom:

1a. HEAD, Open Fontanelles (K132): Apis, CALC., CALC-P., Ip., Merc., Sep., SIL., Sulph., Symph.
Sunken (K132): Apis, calc.

The problem with this rubric is that it seems undeveloped, for it is wholly composed of polychrests. It will therefore probably prove useless and misleading in the case analysis if used alone. If the girl really has a hole in her head (wow) meant to have closed when she was aged two, or even if it reopened, she’s probably a “symptom factory” (Hering) with at least one more good symptom. Nonetheless, with Boöinghausen’s Three Postulates, we can extend this a bit by inclusion of at least two rubrics about similar bone problems:

1b. GENERALITIES, Slow Repair of Broken Bones (K1402): asaf., CALC-P., CALC., ferr., lyc., merc., mez., nit-ac., Ph-ac., phos., puls., ruta, sep., Sil., staph., sulph., Symph.

1c. GENERALITIES, Softening of Bones (K1402): am-c., ASAF., Bell., calc-f., calc-p., CALC., cic., ferr., Hep., iod., ip., Lyc., MERC., mez., Nit-ac., petr., ph-ac., Phos., plb., Puls., rhod., ruta, Sep., SIL., staph., Sulph., ther.

Much better. We can now include this symptom. The combined rubric becomes:

am-c., Apis, ASAF., Bell., calc-f., CALC-P., CALC., cic., ferr., Hep., iod., ip., Lyc., MERC., mez., Nit-ac., petr., ph-ac., Phos., plb., Puls., rhod., ruta, Sep., SIL., staph., Sulph., symph., ther.

Undefined pains associated with this are ignored as common or expected products of the open fontanelle, unless you want to argue that a hole in the head wouldn’t hurt. Unless I am mistaken, the combined effect of pulsing blood and the hydrostatic nature of cerebrospinal fluid would be expected to produce headaches. Ouch AND some likely of infants, huh? Any unexpected or strange, rare and peculiar details of these pains would be uncommon symptoms. Pain on touching the vertex would be expected, but some unusual detail should or might be there. I would therefore try to drag out of her 1) any specific location(s) of pains in the head; 2) any specific kinds of sensation(s) or pains there (“sensations as if” are good if interpreted carefully); 3) any specific conditions that modify(ies) or aggravates or ameliorates it/them from different circumstances (times of the day, weather, temperature, motion, position, eating and drinking, sleep, etc.); and 4) any accompanying complaints or combinations of symptoms associated with (as concomitants) the presumed open fontanelle either generally or in some particular part. Retaking the case should produce something else helpful in such a serious condition. She has no specific head pains, and nothing else occurs but head chilliness and nocturnal perspiration on parts?

Indeed, internal chilliness of the head may also be attributable to an open fontanelle, in which case it seems it would probably lose its assumed rank as an uncommon symptom – since it would no longer be strange and inexplicable – and become a mere common symptom. However, as to who would authoritatively know this is another question. Therefore, the question of an open fontanelle and as to whether or not it could cause internal chilliness need to be either confirmed or rejected since it would seem to be a pivotal determination in the case.

I nonetheless take the two other assumed uncommon symptoms in your interestingly brief case profile. Pending resolution of the two above questions, assuming that both of the next two are uncommon symptoms, I took the two largest rubrics for (2) internal Chilliness in the Head, because it was stated that way, and (3) perspiration During Sleep, leaving out the detail about localized perspiration during sleep for reasons given below:

2. HEAD Coldness, Chilliness, etc. (K108): abrot., acon., AGAR., agn., alum., alumn., am-c., ambr., anan., ant-c., apis., Arn., ars-i., Ars., asaf., asar., Aur., bar-c., BELL., benz-ac., bor., calc-p., calc-s., CALC., Cann-s., caps., carb-an., carb-s., Carb-v., chel., chin-a., chlor., cimic., cist., coca., cocc., Colch., Con., Croc., cupr., dios., dulc., eup-per., ferr-ar., ferr-i., ferr-p., ferr., gels., gins., glon., Graph., grat., ham., hura., Ind., iod., kali-ar., Kali-c., kali-p., kali-s., kreos., Lach., lachn., lact., Laur., Lyc., mag-m., mag-s., mang., Meny., MERC-C., merc-i-r., Merc., morph., mosch., naja., Nat-m., Nit-ac., nux-v., olnd., ph-ac., phel., Phos., phyt., raph., RHUS-T., rhus-v., rumx., Ruta., sabad., Sanic., Sep., Sil., STANN., staph., STRONT., stry., Sulph., sumb., Tarent., thea., til., valer., Verat., verb., vip., zing.

3. PERSPIRATION During Sleep (K1301) (see also K1284 & K1246): agar., anac., Ant-c., Ant-t., Ars., bar-c., BELL., bor., bry., bufo., calc., camph., Carb-an., carb-s., carb-v., Caust., CHAM., CHEL., Chin-a., Chin-s., CHIN., cic., cina., clem., CON., cycl., dig., dros., dulc., eup-per., euphr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Ferr., hep., HYOS., ign., kali-ar., kali-c., Kali-p., Lac-c., lachn., lyc., Merc., MEZ., mur-ac., nat-c., Nat-m., nit-ac., nux-v., Op., Ph-ac., Phos., PLAT., Podo., psor., PULS., RHUS-T., Sabad., SEL., Sep., SIL., stram., Sulph., tarax., THUJ., tub., verat., zinc.

Crossing the last two first, because they are the largest, gives:

agar., ant-c., ars., bar-c., bell., bor., calc., carb-an., carb-s., carb-v., chel., chin-a., con., dulc., eup-per., ferr-ar., ferr-p., ferr. (add it anyway), kali-ar., kali-c., kali-p., lachn., lyc., merc., nat-m., nit-ac., nux-v., ph-ac., phos., rhus-t., sep., sil., sulph., verat.

Crossing that with our combined rubric about bone problems in general and Open Fontanelles in particular gives:

Bell., calc., ferr. (keep it), lyc., merc., nit-ac., ph-ac., phos., sep., sil, sulph.

That seems to be the CORE LIST of this analysis, which is to say that the medicine will likely (and always hopefully) be found among them because the rubrics that follow do not produce an unambiguous result. The number of medicines in this list and the cross section of them is a somewhat typical result for what I’ve found to be a good cross referencing of three uncommon symptoms. I’d therefore be happy with this and read on those medicines for the three uncommon symptoms and then for the totality in any medicines with good matches. If nothing definitive results, look up those in the previous cross reference.

Hering will possibly be the only source for open fontanelles since it would have been clinical additions to the drugs. Boericke can be consulted here since he was just an LPH and open fontanelles may have been added by him since the time of Hering. Argh…I truly long for the new, 100-plus-volume materia medica and repertory from the G.H.G. Jahr Institut [sic]. Ignore Allen, for he was just an LPH who changed and mistranslated symptoms and discarded any from provings of 12C and above per Hughes’ asinine lead, and his work has no clinical confirmations or additions. I would not recommend any other materia medica in particular but would suggest you keep looking until you’re happy with a homeopathic match.

----------

If we continue the repertorization with some slants, we’d then next go to the several rubrics about perspiration of/on the hands, feet and face during sleep, which produces the following in the order of importance I feel exists for this case:

FACE, Perspiration During Sleep (K391): med., prun-s., sep., tab

I’d read the three there that are not on the CORE LIST if you find no clear match in it or in the list from the first cross.

EXTREMETIES, Perspiration on Going to Sleep (K1182): ars.

EXTREMETIES, Perspiration of Feet Evening in Bed (K1183): calc., clem., Mur-ac.

FACE, Perspiration (K390): acon., aesc., aeth., Agar., Alum., Am-m., ambr., amyg., ant-t., arg-m., Arg-n., Arn., ars-h., Ars., aur., Bapt., BELL., benz-ac., bor., Bry., Bufo., Calc-p., calc-s., CALC., CAMPH., Caps., Carb-ac., carb-an., Carb-s., CARB-V., cham., chin-a., Chin., cic., CINA., Cocc., Coff., colch., coloc., con., crot-h., cupr-s., Cupr., Dig., Dros., dulc., elaps., ferr-ar., ferr-p., ferr., fl-ac., Glon., guai., Hell., hep., hydr-ac., Hyos., Ign., ip., jab., Kali-ar., Kali-bi., kali-c., kali-i., kali-p., kali-s., kreos., Lach., lachn., laur., LYC., mag-c., med., MERC., mez., morph., mosch., mur-ac., Nat-m., Nat-s., NUX-V., ol-an., OP., ox-ac., par., Petr., Phos., Psor., PULS., rheum., rhus-t., sabad., Samb., Sars., Sec., Sep., SIL., spig., SPONG., Stann., staph., Stram., stry., sul-ac., Sulph., Tab., tarent., tell., Thuj., til., Valer., verat-v., VERAT., vip.

Note that Med. and Tab. are also here.

EXTREMETIES, Perspiration Hand (K1181): acon., AGN., ambr., aml-n., anac., Ant-t., ars-i., ARS., bar-c., bell., brom., Calc-s., CALC., camph., canth., caps., carb-o., carb-s., carb-v., Caust., cham., chel., Cina., Cit-v., cocc., coff., Coloc., Con., cupr., dig., dirc., dulc., Fago., Fl-ac., glon., graph., guare., hell., Hep., hura., Ign., iod., Ip., Kali-bi., kreos., lact-ac., laur., Led., lith., Lyc., Merc-c., Merc., nat-a., nat-c., Nat-m., nat-p., NIT-AC., Nux-v., oena., ol-an., op., ox-ac., Petr., ph-ac., phel., PHOS., phys., pic-ac., puls., pyrus., rhod., Rhus-t., sars., SEP., SIL., spig., stict., tab., THUJ., verat., Zinc.

Notice Tabaccum there too.

PERSPIRATION of/on Single parts (K1300): Acon., Ambr., ars., bar-c., bell., Bry., Calc-p., CALC., cann-s., caps., CAUST., Cham., chin., hell., hep., IGN., ip., Led., Lyc., merc., MEZ., nux-v., par., Petr., Psor., PULS., Pyrog., rhus-t., Sel., SEP., Sil., Spig., spong., Stann., Sulph., Thuj., Tub., verat., zinc.

It seems to me that medicines in the first five of those six rubrics should logically be added to Perspiration of/on Single Parts because they are single parts. Combining them is how we get around such apparent oversights, and this results in a very large rubric that is important due to the many small remedies you will want to read on for that very reason:

acon., aesc., aeth., Agar., AGN., Alum., Am-m., ambr., aml-n., amyg., anac., ant-t., arg-m., Arg-n., Arn., ars-h., ars-i., ARS., aur., bar-c., Bapt., BELL., benz-ac., brom., bor., Bry., Bufo., Calc-p., calc-s., CALC., CAMPH., canth., Caps., Carb-ac., carb-an., carb-o., Carb-s., CARB-V., Caust., cham., chel., Cina., chin-a., Chin., clem., cic., CINA., Cit-v., Cocc., Coff., colch., coloc., con., crot-h., cupr-s., Cupr., Dig., dirc., Dros., dulc., elaps., fago., ferr-ar., ferr-p., ferr., fl-ac., Glon., graph., guai., guare., Hell., hep., hydr-ac., Hyos., hura., Ign., iod., Ip., jab., Kali-ar., Kali-bi., kali-c., kali-i., kali-p., kali-s., kreos., Lach., lachn., lact-ac., laur., led., lith., LYC., mag-c., med., MERC., mez., morph., mosch., mur-ac., nat-a., nat-c., Nat-m., nat-p., Nat-s., NIT-AC., NUX-V., oena., ol-an., OP., ox-ac., par., Petr., ph-ac., phel., PHOS., pyrus., prun-s., Psor., PULS., rheum., rhod., rhus-t., sabad., Samb., Sars., Sec., SEP., SIL., spig., SPONG., Stann., staph., stict., Stram., stry., sul-ac., Sulph., Tab., tarent., tell., THUJ., til., Valer., verat-v., VERAT., vip., Zinc.

If we now ignore the first rubric involving Open Fontanelles and bone problems as unreliable, due to it having only polychrests until modified as we did, and instead cross reference or repertorize Chilliness [inside] Head with this combined rubric for Perspiration of/on Single Parts, Face, Hand and Feet, we get:

Acon., AGAR., agn., alum., ambr., Arn., ars-i., Ars., Aur., bar-c., BELL., benz-ac., bor., calc-p., calc-s., CALC., caps., carb-an., carb-s., Carb-v., chel., chin-a., Colch., Con., cupr., dulc., ferr-ar., ferr-p., ferr., glon., Graph., hura., iod., kali-ar., Kali-c., kali-p., kali-s., kreos., Lach., lachn., Laur., Lyc., merc., morph., mosch., Nat-m., Nit-ac., nux-v., ph-ac., phel, Phos., RHUS-T., sabad., Sep., Sil, STANN., staph., stry., Sulph, Tarent., valer., Verat., vip.

Now we cross that with Perspiration During Sleep and get:

Agar., Ars., bar-c., BELL., bor., calc., Carb-an., carb-s., carb-v., CHEL., Chin-a., CON., dulc., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Ferr., kali-ar., kali-c., Kali-p., lachn., lyc., Merc., Nat-m., nit-ac., nux-v., Ph-ac., Phos., RHUS-T., Sabad., Sep., SIL., Sulph., verat.

That is the same initial list in the first repertorization. And that’s why I said the small remedies in the combined rubric for Perspiration of/on Single Parts, Face, Hands and Feet could prove decisive and thereby justify this second repertorization. Now we cross that with our combined rubric for Open Fontanelles and bone problems and again get our original CORE LIST but with Ferrum this time:

Bell., CALC., ferr., Lyc., MERC., Nit-ac., ph-ac., Phos., Sep., SIL., Sulph.

----------

If, instead of combining rubrics for Perspiration of/on Single Parts, Face, Hands and Feet, we cross symptoms 2 and 3 with the unmodified Perspiration of/on Single Parts, we get:

Ars., bar-c., bell., calc., chin-a (leave it), lyc., merc., nux-v., rhus-t., sep., sil., sulph., verat.

That now crossed with Open Fontalles and bone problems gets:

Bell., CALC., Lyc., MERC., Sep., SIL., Sulph.

It doesn’t seem to want us to consider small remedies here. That is always the case with such crosses, though, so I took the detailed route here so as to reveal them.

----------

The following are the subrubrics of Chilliness in the Head in the order I found them important:

Head, Icy Coldness (K108): Agar., Ars., bar-c., calc-p., CALC., Ind., laur., nux-v., phos., Sep., valer.

Head, Icy Coldness Internally (K108): arn., bell., CALC.

Head, Coldness perspiration, with (K108) : merc-c.

Head, Coldness internally (K108): arn., bell., CALC.

Head, Coldness even when covered (K108): Mang.

Head, Coldness as if cold cloth around the brain (K108): glon., Sanic.

Head, Coldness warm room (K108): Laur., merc-i-r., tarent.

Head, Coldness, Vertex (K109): agar., am-c., arn., Arum-t., aur-m., Bry., CALC-P., calc-s., calc., ferr-p., grat., kali-c., kali-i., kali-s., Laur., mang., myric., Nat-m., plat., psor., Sep., Sil., sulph., tarent., valer., VERAT.

Head, Vertex, Icy Coldness of (K109): agar., arn., Laur., valer., Verat.

Head, Vertex, Coldness even when covered (K109): mang.

Head, Vertex, Icy Coldness in a warm room (K109): Laur.

I also do not presently see anything definitive coming from that because the rubrics are pitifully undeveloped. However, they could later prove important as your analysis becomes more decisive, for you can then read Laur, merc-c., etc., in order to assure yourself that one of those is or is not the indicated remedy in a final step.

----------

The CORE LIST of medicines should suffice for a materia medica search. Seems to me that you will have to consider Boöinghausen’s Postulates here, i.e., what the old masters called analogous symptoms. Specifically, in Hahnemann you would search medicines for sensations in the vertex because the provers would not have suffered open fontanelles but may have had sensations there. And you will want to look for any issues of bone problems in Hering because bone loss or malformation issues of bone mendings might be found as clinical additions. If you don’t know Boöinghausen’s Three Postulates, ask Hans Weitbrecht or I can perhaps look them up for you.

----------

Calcarea carbonica is strong in this case’s repertorizations and so is Silica, but I cannot tell why you mentioned Psorinum. If it’s a guess due to vaccinations and thoughts about them proffered by Maggie Tyler and her followers, hold onto that thought until much later. Psorinum is not, however, the first drug to consider in vaccinosis, and Tyler showed numerous vaccine nosodes to be called for in a vaccine-damaged population that the British had and we now have. At least two papers on her basic rap about this are important in this consideration. Both are from her journal. The first is an Editorial from 1938 republished in THE HOMEOPATHIC HERITAGE (HH), Vol. 8, No. 3, 1983, pp. 89-93. The second is from about 1932 entitled “Hahnemann’s Conception of Chronic Diseases as Caused by Parasitic Micro-Organisms” republished in the HH of July 1980.

Although I am not going to defend her bold suggestions, I can nonetheless show that there is precedence for it in W.S. Gee’s rule for unclear cases and prescribing on pre-existing symptoms, to be found in “Constitutional Symptoms” (http://www.homeoint.org/cazalet/gee/constitutional.htm):

“When the present symptoms do not, with a reasonable degree of certainty, indicate a remedy, search for pre-existing constitutional symptoms.”

He was Adjutant Professor of Materia Medica & Clinical Medicine at Hahnemann College. That would be either the most or one of three most prestigious homeopathic college of all time perhaps second to Allentown, which was run by Wm. Wesselhoeft, the Elder, and featured Hering till the money was stolen by a Trustee of the corporation they’d formed for our first college in the world. However, there were always problems with our colleges, so I find it wisest to hold off from such determinations if I find it difficult or seem to remember something wrong mentioned by someone else but without being able to exactly recall it.

This is dangerous ground in general, and I think German Hahnemannians dismiss the notion of “constitutional symptoms” due to how it leads into the hyper-mystical insanities of miasmatic theory that they long ago thoroughly trashed as corruptions of Hahnemann’s thoughts as well as pointing out that he never proved the psoric part of it and therefore never applied it in lieu of the Law of Similars in the element where it would matter since all he really did in the case of syphilis and gonorrhea was to find a heap of medicines for them. Interesting paper, though. At this level of things, I demur when undecided about issues. Saw it 15-20 years ago in THE HOMEOPATHIC HERITAGE.

Anyway, though, that was the same type of thought that Maggie Tyler engaged in with startling results during the war years and thereabouts due to vaccination cases. I think it is reasonable for there to be horrors from vaccines that have become chronic diseases in all of us from childhood. But it just as logically seems that we should hold onto any vaccine-damage notions in a case till it is a nearly cured case, for the time-element of the Law or Rule of Cure seems to have been well verified such that we can either accept it is a natural law or nearly so and therefore reason that symptoms disappearing in the reverse order of occurrence would arise or reoccur late in the case resolution prior to discharge as fully cured back to en utero influences, if we are able to do that like some have suggested.

----------

Being sensitive against eliminating medicines from consideration in the sort of offhand manner we do during repertorizations simply because medicines do not run through the rubrics of a case, and knowing that the repertory is eternally expanding with our help, I remembered some cases somewhat recently reread in a reprinted paper from the Way-Back Machine. So I went looking to see if my Index Additions to a volume of THE HOMEOPATHIC HERITAGE (H.H.) would lead me to it. Sure enough, I made the Addition as “Bone United in Fracture (Symph),” p. 162 of the 1983 edition, originally from the IHA’S TRANSACTIONS for 1881. The author is H.L. Ostrom, and the paper is entitled “Conservative Surgery,” pp. 161-64. They are homeopathic saves from radical surgeries, including planned amputations. They are all problematic bone fractures knitted by the simillimum. The four medicines used singly in the four cases were Causticum, Symphytum, Silica and Sulphuric acid. I would therefore hesitantly add Caust. and Sul-ac. to Open Fontanelles but with that reference. However, that does not change the CORE LIST here since neither appears in the other two uncommon symptoms. Still, read it if only regarding what he said about Sul-ac. The H.H. is surely a readily available publication in the three naturopathic schools of North America, and one of them should be willing to scan or xerox it for you.

Another case came to mind because it recorded amazing regeneration of amputated bone tissues. It begins: “Prof. L.T. had, year[s] ago as a student, [a] fracture of the bone of the first phalanx of his right thumb. It was removed leaving a stump about one-quarter of an inch above [distal to] the knuckle joint.” It was reinjured in a car door, and he came complaining of “severe pain at the top of the stump.” That seemed mildly interesting in regard to the vertex of the head in your case, but no more than intriguing. After Ruta and Calcarea phosphorica, K.S. Ganapathy gave Myristica sebifera (Mys-seb.) and reports: “There was a growth above the thumb which [that] looked like the lost first phalanx. We persisted in the remedy and the first phalanx was fully grown in stature in conformity with the other phalanges. There was, however, a blue flush in that phalanx. His colleagues warned him that he was developing gangrene. He came for advice. I told him [that] gangrene implied [required] septic condition[s] for some time earlier and requested him to continue Mys-seb. in less frequent doses. Within a week or so the blueness disappeared. He had a normal thumb….It looks as if Mys-seb. by itself (or following Ruta and Calc-ph.) can regenerate lost tissues.” The Editor, Koppikar, then comments on how “Mys-seb. can also become as useful as Mercurius, Hepar sulph. and Sil. in abscesses and whitlow” (H.H. 1982, p. 445). I remembered this case because of what I know about the etheric pattern, or what is arcanely called the Vital Body on the Etheric Plane when in reference to organic bodies, and how logic says we ought to be able to regenerate tissues if the etheric pattern is still integral or can be made so by homeotherapeutics. Therefore, it is suggested you read Mys-seb. too.

----------

I now critique it. First, Calcarea is a reasonable consideration here but just one of many, and you stated no reasons for it. I therefore cannot tell why you chose it. Stuart Close recorded P.P. Wells as frequently and wisely saying: “If you don’t know what to do, DO NOTHING – UNTIL YOU DO KNOW.” You should not be throwing medicines into people without good justifications. I am not saying you did, but you did not indicate any. If you have not yet, please learn the usage of placebo and frequent consultations till you’ve sussed it. These medicines are definitely manna to suffering humanity, but they can only be so if used properly. (Moses, incidentally, was a High Adept in the Hermetic Brotherhood, and manna translated means “what’s it” or “what is it?” I’ve always found that pair of facts interesting for the supposition that he may have spent 40 years homeopathically reintegrating the etheric patterns of a gazillion shattered people.), We have the Law of Similars guiding our choices of the simillimum (“thing most similar”), so it is a bad idea to discard the wonder of how symptoms can match as closely as possible.

Secondly, it is common today for people to prescribe from the repertory, but those are guaranteed to be just high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs). The schools are run by them and graduate them by the hundreds, which is disgraceful and most dolorous for Hahnemannian homeopathy. Still, they are much closer than the hopeless wretches called low-potency pseudo-homeopaths (LPHs). The ratio of HPHs to LPHs are historically about 1:100 and for Hahnemannians to HPHs also about 1:100. There aren’t very many Hahnemannians, for whatever reason, but we most certainly recognize LPHs and HPHs from a long ways away because they all make constant mistakes. Against the practice of prescribing from the repertory, Hahnemann wrote the following on p. 121 of THE CHRONIC DISEASES:

“…he should not be satisfied with any of the existing repertories – a carelessness only too frequent; for these books are only intended to give light hints as to one or another remedy that might be selected, but they can never dispense him from making the research at the first fountain heads [the provings and materia medica]. He who does not take the trouble of treading this path in all critical and complicated diseases, and, indeed, with all patience and intelligence, but contents himself with the vague hints of the repertories in the choice of a remedy, and who thus quickly dispatches one patient after the other, does not deserve the honorable title of a genuine homeopath, but is rather to be called a bungler, who on that account has continually to change his remedies until the patient loses patience; and as his ailments have of course only been aggravated he must leave this aggravator of diseases, whereby the art itself suffers discredit instead of the unworthy disciple of art.”

Hahnemann there states two of the seven mistakes constantly made by HPHs, the two most serious ones. One is that they always prescribe from the repertory. The journals constantly reveal this mistake. Obviously, the people who teach them also make this mistake or it would not be nearly all-pervasive in our supposed journals. Not being able to identify characteristic or uncommon symptoms is far worse, though, for homeotherapeutics is totally impossible without this perception. Neither is it easy; it often exasperates me. You don’t seem to have this problem. Everybody seems to think that there are just Hahnemannian or classical homeopaths and mongrels or LPHs, but that is totally wrong. The HPHs also existed even in Hahnemann’s time or he would not have complained about them. You have to match symptoms in the materia medica. There simply is no other way. Please learn that rationale if you are in the habit of failing to match homeopathicity as much as is possible verbatim within the materia medica. It is very important.

Finally, you said that you threw into the girl multiple doses. I doubt that this could be called an acute case, so it seems to be a mistake to me. I understand it is a common practice, but you really should reconsider it, for you cannot tell what’s happening if you are constantly attempting to start a curative process. The logic is that medicines have primary and secondary effects. The primary ones are deleterious effects of the medicines in that they are toxicological or initial effects of the medicines. The secondary effects are the counteractions or reactions of the organism. Because we use ultramolecular potencies, that specifically means reactions established in the etheric pattern, generically called the vital force. It’s surely clear that you’re defeating your goal when you repeatedly attempt to begin a curative reaction. Hahnemann says this very clearly in Article 247 of the ORGANON:

“It is inadmissible to repeat, even once, exactly the same dose of the medicine without modifying it,a let alone many times (and at short intervals, because one does not want to the cure to be delayed).
“The vital principle does not accept such IDENTICAL doses without opposition, i.e., without bringing out other symptoms of the medicine, symptoms not similar to those of the disease being treated. The previous dose has already completed the transformation of the vital principle expected of it, and a second, unmodified dose of the same medicine identical in degree of dynamization is consequently no longer able to work exactly the same effect upon the vital principle. Now the patient can only be made sick in a different way by such an UNALTERED dose, basically more sick than before, because now the only symptoms left to act are the medicinal ones that are not homeopathic to the disease. Therefore no progress toward cure but only a real aggravation of the case can result.
“But if one slightly modifies the potency of each new dose by dynamizing it to a somewhat higher degree (par. 269 and par. 270), the sick vital principle allows itself to be altered further by the same medicine without ill effect (to have its awareness of the natural disease further reduced) and thereby to be brought near to cure.”

In short, if the medicine fits, give it a chance. Grasp that this young lady’s open fontanelle, if it be that and even if reopened, suggests she has been sick from childhood. So be prepared for commotion to accompany a good prescription due to initial potencies being too low. But do not be in a hurry to jump to higher potencies like HPHs do, for you will quickly further aggravate the problem and run out of potencies if you do. Hahnemann settled potency issues with the development of Q-potencies, but none have ever been correctly made simply because nobody has ever bothered to make microglobules of the right size. Argh… Kent would have us move through what he called “octaves” of potencies, but Michael Quinn of Hahnemann Laboratories I believe holds that those jumps are too broad. Hahnemann moreover insisted we start at “the lowest degrees of dynamization and if necessary continue to the higher degrees, which are increasingly strong but always act gently” (Art. 270, footnote f). You can also do that with C-potencies by ignoring Kent’s ideas about octaves. The idea of ascending potencies is that all but the optimally ultramolecular (or what is erroneously called the minimum) does will require an ascending dose to follow it; i.e., cure is sustained by the perfect potency. However, you can never determine this beforehand, nor can you say that the potency that eventually cures was needed in the beginning, because each previous potency of a person’s simillimum modifies the etheric pattern toward cure. Likewise, that bone will have to knit together, and that will take many months and maybe over a year unless you get a miraculous effect by hitting the simillimum. Be patient and let ascending doses, given WHEN NECESSARY and when the previous dose has exhausted its effect, do their work on the etheric pattern. The literature on this subject is extreme from Hahnemannians and even HPHs, so please consult them before you again deviate from the Law of the Single Dose.

You have uncommon symptoms in this case, though. Most cases reported in journals are totally useless parts of throw-away journals because there are no characteristic symptoms since the people never learned how to identify them and absolutely reek of the psychobabblic sophistries that Hahnemann admonished against in the footnote to Article 1. Bad on them; good on you.

I cannot, however, make this decision for you because this is a long-term issue and your responsibility. Good luck!

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Dear Members
To get a clearer view, I optically rearranged the picture.

Main-complaint: Headache

Locality: Vertex,
Sensation of pain:?????????????
Modality: ???????
Con-commitants: spongy swelling on vertex, extremely painful to touch.

It is unclear if there is a more than co-incidental relationship between the main-symptom and this coldness of the head, or the perspiration [face, hands, feet,< night].
If those extra symptoms would form part of the disease-picture, then they would need to have a clear time-wise dependency.

The more defining, rather peculiar symptom in this case of Vertex-ache is that spongy swelling which goes with it, which is extremely painful to touch.

Bearing in mind that the remedy to be suitable should have these two symptoms in characteristics we turn to the repertory.
Of course, if someone knows the MM well, he would not need the aid of a repertory to guide him to a group of possible remedies.

Repertorisation:

1) head external, swelling, spongy: Apis[3], Ars[2], Guaj[2], Old[4], sulph[2], [BB2, 306]
2) Head, external, sensitive to touch: Ars[5]. Sulph[5].

Materia Medica comparison:

I compared Ars, Old, Sulph in the CD, and found, that SULPH is the most suitable to the case, because it has both par.: 153-Symptoms in characteristic manner.


Ps.: It should be noted, that Kent’s repertory is a compilation of most of the repertories available at the time. A lot of entries cannot be sourced, and in comparison with the MM not be verified. BB2 [1937] suffers to a lesser degree the same problem, as not only material from Boenninghausen is included, but also Material from Jahr. The BB1 [1905] does not suffer this problem. Still, the closest to the provings would be Boenninghausen: SRA+ SRN, and the TT.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

You pretty humorous sometimes, Hans.

What does SRA and SRN stand for. And while I'm here...what does bb2 stand for...and TT..is that therapeutic pocket book?

Dear members
SRA= Systematic repertory of the antipsoric / antisycotic and antisyphilitic remedies, Published 1833 by Boenninghausen [german]
Published in english by Boger 1904
SRN= Sytematic Repertory of the Nonpsoric/non-syphilitic, non-sycotic remedies
Published 1835 by Boenninghausen [german]
TT = Therapeutic Pocketbook
Published 1846 by Boenninghausen [german]
TP = Therapeutic Pocketbook based on the 1846 version but extended by Allen 1897 [english]
TBR = The Boenninghausen Repertory.
Completely changed version of the TT. by Dimitriadis [english]
BB 1 =Boger-Boenninghausen repertory first edition 1905 [contains SRA, SRN, TT, and is in English]
BB 2 = Boger-Boenninghausen Repertory second Ed. 1937 [greatly extended version of BB1, also changes in rubric-titles and grading, finished after Boger's death in India not as reliable as BB1 ]

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath