Passkey!

Would like to thank you for your opinion. After researching for a time, I came to the conclusion, that as her symptom of not being thirsty even at fever is I tconsider to be a very important one, Pulsatilla is what I will choose first. I ordered it in LM1 potency, because of the thyroid hormon she still get daily.
Thanks: Monika

It seems you have mentioned something about vaccination and consequent problems. try to remedy that by selecting the best potency of the proper remedy and then decide on p'la or any other thing. There may lie the answer.
best of luck,
nosle.com gui

That's a beautiful case report.

I immediately spotted that elongated big toes is strange, but I didn't find the rubric. I'm not sure I've ever seen it, either, but it surely exists in one of the repertories. Did anyone find it? It may be in THE SYNTHETIC REPERTORY. Even though I don't like them due to their unreliability, I do look for odd symptoms in the repertories of the GVs. Does anyone find this rubric? My books were stolen, so I can't do it.

I next spotted that aversion to water is also extremely rare, strange and peculiar:

Stomach, aversion to water (Kent p. 482 []KENT0480): Apis., bell., brom., bry., calad., cann-i., canth., carl., caust., cedr., chin., coc-c., coloc., elaps., ham., hell., Hyos., kali-bi., lyc., lyss., manc., merc-c., nat-m., Nux-v., onos., ox-ac., phel., phys., puls., Stram., thea., zinc.

Aversion to cold water: Bell., brom., bry., calad., canth., caust., chel., chin-a., chin., lyss., nat-m., nux-v., phel., phys., stram., tab.

The description of how slowly her Mind works also strikes me as strange given such extreme couriosity:

Mind DULLNESS, sluggishness, difficulty of thinking and comprehending (Kent p. 37 []KENT0035): Abies-n., abrot., acet-ac., acon., aesc., aeth., agar., agn., alum., am-c., ambr., anac., ant-c., apis., arg-m., Arg-n., arn., ars-i., ars., asar., aster., aur., Bapt., Bar-c., Bar-m., Bell., berb., bism., bov., Bry., bufo., cact., calc-ar., Calc-p., Calc-s., Calc., camph., cann-i., cann-s., canth., caps., carb-ac., carb-o., carb-s., Carb-v., carl., caust., cham., chel., chin-a., chin-s., chin., cic., cimic., cimx., clem., coc-c., cocc., colch., coloc., con., cop., corn., croc., crot-h., crot-t., cupr-ar., cupr., cycl., dig., dros., dulc., echi., Gels., gins., glon., Graph., Guai., Hell., helon., hep., hipp., hydr-ac., Hyos., ign., Ind., indg., iod., ip., iris., Kali-br., Kali-c., kali-i., kali-n., kali-p., kali-s., kreos., lac-c., Lach., lact., Laur., led., lepi., lil-t., Lyc., lyss., mag-m., med., meli., merc-c., merc., merl., mez., mosch., mur-ac., myric., naja., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., nat-p., nat-s., nicc., nit-ac., Nux-m., nux-v., olnd., Op., par., petr., Ph-ac., Phos., phys., Pic-ac., pip-m., plat., Plb., psor., ptel., Puls., ran-b., ran-s., rheum., rhod., rhus-t., rhus-v., ruta., sabad., sal-ac., sang., sars., sec., sel., Seneg., Sep., Sil., spig., spong., stann., Staph., still., stram., sul-ac., Sulph., sumb., tab., tarax., tarent., teucr., ther., thuj., til., Tub., valer., verat., verb., viol-o., Zinc.

The fact that it's not a small rubric is disturbing and may call into question this judgment of it being an uncommon symptom, but we'll let it stand for the time being. We don't cross-reference them yet. In fact, I haven't yet even finished reading the case report, and this is from just a single read through of it. It's just beginning, and I wouldn't be surprised to find seven uncommon symptoms hidden in there when fully considered, for it seems to be replete with them. I want you people to help me.

Next, having then begun to read the postings, I don't see the problem here that the first person to reply did. It looks like a very diligent effort to record the symptoms, and you get 10 stars from me for that because it's one of the most annoying things to simply drag symptoms out of people. We can't do anything until then, and yet it's difficult with most people, so this is good and worthy. Just forget that reply. Meaning to cast no aspersions against Dr. Agarwala, don't let that reply affect you. The worst that could happen is that we're unable to help, so how much worstested [that's my humor] could it be?

The problem will always be that paper cases are two dimensional. What does she look like? sound like? walk like? How does she giggle? What is her room like? 1001 things are imparted as quickly as you can snap your fingers when viewed, but can they be clearly and accurately imparted in writing? I think so, and I want people to help me develop this case analysis. Still, this is just from observations by an attendant to the patient. That's the least reliable and least important of the three sources of information. First comes our observations. Hahnemann's sterling example of observational skills are seen in the cure of raving insanity in Duke Klockenbring of Hanover within THE LESSER WRITINGS beginning on p. 242. This lady doesn't have such skills. Doesn't the child have any complaints of her own?

Ah, and then upon going backward through the postings, what do I find? LisaAnne is a moderator. Whata babe, and they couldn't have picked better. How's your husband and puppy dog or whatever it was? You like snakes, right? No, it's gargoils, methinks. No, it's purple suits. I remember. Anyway, be a good moderator and don't kick me off too easily, okay? It's such a happy thought! I thought, where is everyone? Where's Hans?

Anyway, this is at least something to work with. The basic idea of homeotherapeutics is to find the one medicine with symptoms most similar to the sufferings of a patient. That doesn't mean that the whole symptom profile of a drug has to match the case symptoms. No, the reverse. The symptom database has to have the symptoms of a patient in greatest similarity to the case more than any other, or it's not homeopathic to the case. Don't forget that detail or you'll get lost trying to match 5000 symptoms of a drug with 10-30 of a patient, and then you're lost. No, it's the other way around, and don't forget it.

You simply unambiguously match the symptoms, and cure obtains because the organism would have done it itself had it been able. The fact that cures occur through absolutes we call the four Laws of Cure (or, more accurately, through the four-part Law of Cure) is all the more elegant in that they're simply the reverse or converse of pathological progressions, so we cooperate with Nature and let it do it itself once we set curative processes in motion. We do that through the Law of Similars using single drugs in single ultramolecular doses. That succinctly imparts all four Laws of Therapeutics and how they're interdependent. They're all important, but the Law of Similars and homeopathic potentization are the most important factors because you only get cures through similars, and you only reach the seat of disorder through drug dynamization. You never want to run out of potencies, so you always begin low, and you never jump to higher potencies until necessary. Likewise, you can always slightly modify the potency by dropping them in water and stirring, so you stick with one potency (always slightly modified) for as long as the organism can handle it since you otherwise face the following mieutic question if you don't: What are you going to do when you run out of potencies?

Unlike allopathic thought, the causes are totally irrelevant except to prevent diseases, so you just forget that allopathic notion as part of the Dark Ages. How it happens is also irrelevant; that it works is self-evident in the 10 natural laws specific to medicine and unique to homeopathy. Similarly, we know gravity by dropping a ball. We further know the details of how and why it falls through the Laws of Motion Newton provided. The fact that everything else fits and provides exact predictability means the assumptions must be correct, so we don't need to know more in order to work with gravity and go to the Moon and stuff. The very same calculus holds with homeopathy and the 10 Laws of Medicine. The ultimate details of how homeopathic cures occur and how gravity works will, however, never be discovered because that's beyond the means of our gizmos and our normal brain perceptions. Gravitons are virtual particles, theoretical particles, so-called "massless particles" and are therefore etheric particles. The same holds with the 10 Laws of Medicine for the very same reasons. Gravity is a totally invisible force and is therefore obviously precipitated off of the Etheric Plane of existence. Whatever particles it issues through are irrelevant by comparison, and modern scientists are simply ignoring this fact and coming to an impossible conclusion based upon their mindless paradigm of philosophical materialism, mechanism and reductionism. Specifically, they're insisting that gluons are the source of the strong nuclear force, that mesons are the source of the weak nuclear force, that gravitons are the source of the gravitational force and that photons are the source of the electromagnetic force. No, and as Hahnemann first said, "A thing cannot be the cause of itself." Academic bozos can't connect the dots here, but they'll eventually be replaced by others who can and who see that it's impossible. They'll then go, "No, those are only the means through which those forces issue into the world." "Yes, Jethro. Thank you for catching up." In fact, as with electromagnetism and photons, it's likely that there will eventually be found many such vehicles for the totally invisible forces that suffuse the universe in these universe-wide field effects to issue through them into the world. As for the colour force and etheric particles we're calling quarks, that has insoluble problems. Moreover, modern science hasn't yet even begun to identify the additional fundamental forces involved in the hierarchy of life forces apparent within the increasing complexity of organisms found as three apparent/visible life waves: plants, animals and human beings. Likewise, all legitimate religious literature refer to three sets of Higher Beings most generally called Angels, or an Angelic Host for each planet, ArchAngels, or an ArchAngelic Host for each star, and a Celestial Host of Celestial Beings having charge of entire galaxies and being what we actually mean by God and purportedly residing at the centers of galaxies just as ArchAngels reside on the Sun but at a rate of atomic nutational motion (the 6th plane) where it ceases being a fireball. Nonetheless, we have a long way to go before the sciences as presently understood will recognize the existence of fundamental forces of Nature involved in living beings because they still can't yet even define life since they're all composed of total bozos enamored with the philosophical materialism, mechanism and reductionism that gave rise to the rediscovery of the sciences. However, we are in the transition stages to the "Final Philosophy" (Galileo) and have been since Max Planck introduced us to the world of energies, so we may live to see those bozos get replaced with people able to conceive of these things. String theorists have accurately calculated the number of planes even through their basic assumptions are quite wrong, so we're clearly near the great change where the natural laws of chemistry, physics and homeopathy merge since they're all that exist other than from arcane philosophies.

So, to fulfill the requirements of the Law of Similars, you can only use the uncommon symptoms as the pivotal ones in a remedy choice (case analysis) because only they will lead to an unambiguous choice. You can only determine them after collecting a complete case, though, so we're methodical since we can never go back and do it right a second time. You therefore always go, "What else?" "What else?" "What else?" You shut the phoo* up, and let them speak. I use ploys to pry everything out of people. Find your own. The point is that you let them tell you everything they think is important and don't interfere. You have to record everything absolutely verbatim, too, and you'll learn why through tragedies, so just trust me. When there's no more bla, bla, bla following "What else?" you ask questions. What questions, though? I ask the most-important ones first but am methodical that I ask them all. Which ones are most important? The case determines that, and I'm only rarely correct that it was the most-important question, but I at least ask what is most important to me and then ask everything. What does that mean? Again, you always leave them room to tell you things, so these first questions are simply to fill in details they've either overlooked or forgotten. Location, sensation, modalities and concommitants; all well-taken symptoms will have those, so you ask about them. All the while, we ask, "What else?" I don't care how many times you ask it, it will rarely be enough, and you'll learn that through experience.

At a certain point in your knowledge of homeopathy, you'll be able to prescribe well before you've taken a full case, but you have to use right discrimination and avoid making that mistake since there's one and only one time to take a first case report. Everything else will later depend upon this, and our goal is to disintegrate even the inherited disease predispositions in order to permanently extinguish chronic diseases and psychiatric maladies from this planet. It will take an estimated 40-50 million Hahnemannians to do that, but we can only do it one person at a time, so we're always in the process of doing so. Taking someone back to in-eutero influences and finally dismissing them as fully cured is beyond imagination, for our long-term patients greatly increase their mentation and are fundamentally not the same person who first came to us. Try to imagine it, and you were probably born a physician and have been looking for homeopathy, so what are you doing for the rest of your life? Again, "What else?" "What else?" "What else?" Once we have the minor details filled in, we look to fill in the gaping holes. Things are always missing in what patients report. I don't care how complete it looks, something is always missing. We learn that from previous cases, so we try to fill it in, too. I wouldn't know how to begin to explain this, but it's simply important to remember that the dots don't fully connect in any case anamesis until we begin to do case analysis of it, so our thoughts turn to such issues without making any judgments. You're taking the case, so take the case. Case analysis comes later, so let it come later. Yes-and-no questions are forbidden. "Is your head on straight?" "No, that's why I'm here." Don't ask questions looking for answers like that. Whatever else there is to it, and it is a lot, try to remember those most-important elements of taking a case.

Once we have all of the symptoms, we then have to first evaluate which are actual disease symptoms, for some will be poisoning symptoms, and others will come from avoidable influences. You can't prescribe until you get rid of the poisoning influences because those cloud the case and distort other symptoms. I don't like prescribing for people taking allopathic drugs, but almost everyone does. I have long texts for new patients, and I make this very clear so that they know it's all only interfering in what they're looking for. People think they can't do without their allopathic drugs. "You can't do without poisons?" What sense does that make? You have to be expert to deal with such cases, and I don't find hardly anyone qualified today. Poisoning influences extend, however, far beyond allopathic drugs. We are surfeit with ubiquitous poisons everywhere we turn. Are some of them adversely affecting people without their knowledge? You had better be at least mildly expert at chemistry if you want to do homeotherapeutics today, for there are over 200,000 chemicals in production by the devils of industrial chemistry, and you have to know their effects to even know what to look for. That's all a gigantic subject.

The avoidable influences are similarly able to cloud the case, but people can more readily rid themselves of them. If you live beyond your means and are in constant want, fix it. If your shoes don't fit, don't wear them. If you don't like your hair style, change it. If something is causing you anxieties, get rid of them. You'll eventually be able to effectively deal with all such cra*, but who'd want to? If you walk too far at work, get a different job. If you sit down too long at work, fix it. If you work under tyranny, quit. If you're getting beat up by your boyfriend, get a new brain. Oops, that's what I'm for. I made my point, though. So many things produce symptoms in us as reactions but to avoidable influences, so get rid of them.

Article 3 of Hahnemann's ORGANON OF MEDICINE says that we need to know what's curable. Did you finally understand what that means? I don't know why they don't teach such things in the schools, but none of the schools impress me and shouldn't exist. We need a school like the Allentown Academy because we need Hahnemannians, not HPHs. You people can rise above it, though, into Hahnemannian status just like the rest of us. You have to, too, for this world is headed for a Great Plague. They come and go, and we're way overdue. The last one was the Asiatic cholera of 1830-33. These monsters from Alpha centari take away one-third to one-half of the human race, and we need you people in the Vithoulkas school of thought to abandon the foolishness you've been brainwashed to, and rise to real homeopathy. We need you. Fix it.

We're looking for the uncommon symptoms, but what if they're not actually symptoms? The published case reports by the GVs are full of these mistakes, but I've already thoroughly explained these mistakes in this forum. Nonetheless, which are actual disease symptoms? Figure that out next on the way to isolating the few all-important uncommon symptoms.

We then place the disease symptoms in a hierarchy of importance rather brilliantly created by Kent and recently quoted here at the threat titled Folliculinum-Perimenopause, depression and anxiety. One group are the uncommon symptoms, and the other are the common symptoms. Each falls into the same hierarchy. It's about that simple.

So, we have a pretty good start at a good case here. The lady has to fill in the gaps herself. I'm trying to get you people to think homeopathically and am thus spending a lot of time here, so I can't devote a lot of time to any one effort. Help me. I haven't even read the whole of your description yet. What other symptoms has she reported of importance? What other details do we need to know about the rest of them? Ask her.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Generalities, dwarfishness [KENT1355]: BAR-C., Bar-m., CALC-P., Calc., Carb-s., iod., lyc., Med., merc., Ol-j., sec., Sil., SULPH., zinc.

Elongated big toes is strange. Where's the rubric?

Aversion to water is also extremely rare, strange and peculiar:

Stomach, aversion to water (Kent p. 482 []KENT0480): Apis., bell., brom., bry., calad., cann-i., canth., carl., caust., cedr., chin., coc-c., coloc., elaps., ham., hell., Hyos., kali-bi., lyc., lyss., manc., merc-c., nat-m., Nux-v., onos., ox-ac., phel., phys., puls., Stram., thea., zinc.

Aversion to cold water: Bell., brom., bry., calad., canth., caust., chel., chin-a., chin., lyss., nat-m., nux-v., phel., phys., stram., tab.

The description of how slowly her Mind works also strikes me as strange given such extreme couriosity:


Mind DULLNESS, sluggishness, difficulty of thinking and comprehending (Kent p. 37 []KENT0035): Abies-n., abrot., acet-ac., acon., aesc., aeth., agar., agn., alum., am-c., ambr., anac., ant-c., apis., arg-m., Arg-n., arn., ars-i., ars., asar., aster., aur., Bapt., Bar-c., Bar-m., Bell., berb., bism., bov., Bry., bufo., cact., calc-ar., Calc-p., Calc-s., Calc., camph., cann-i., cann-s., canth., caps., carb-ac., carb-o., carb-s., Carb-v., carl., caust., cham., chel., chin-a., chin-s., chin., cic., cimic., cimx., clem., coc-c., cocc., colch., coloc., con., cop., corn., croc., crot-h., crot-t., cupr-ar., cupr., cycl., dig., dros., dulc., echi., Gels., gins., glon., Graph., Guai., Hell., helon., hep., hipp., hydr-ac., Hyos., ign., Ind., indg., iod., ip., iris., Kali-br., Kali-c., kali-i., kali-n., kali-p., kali-s., kreos., lac-c., Lach., lact., Laur., led., lepi., lil-t., Lyc., lyss., mag-m., med., meli., merc-c., merc., merl., mez., mosch., mur-ac., myric., naja., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., nat-p., nat-s., nicc., nit-ac., Nux-m., nux-v., olnd., Op., par., petr., Ph-ac., Phos., phys., Pic-ac., pip-m., plat., Plb., psor., ptel., Puls., ran-b., ran-s., rheum., rhod., rhus-t., rhus-v., ruta., sabad., sal-ac., sang., sars., sec., sel., Seneg., Sep., Sil., spig., spong., stann., Staph., still., stram., sul-ac., Sulph., sumb., tab., tarax., tarent., teucr., ther., thuj., til., Tub., valer., verat., verb., viol-o., Zinc.

What's the rest of the case? Tell me forward of this, and I'll incorporate it here. Uncommon symptoms only, please. The rest will fall into place.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

What do you mean by "big knee bone, and a so big ankle bone, it is hard to buy her shoes?"

Is the water where you're at fit to drink?

You said, "she has a soft appearance in her muscles. From babyhood till now, it resembles a cake being kneeded and waiting to raise before baking." Are you saying that she's overweight and that there is a sponginess to her flesh? Is she actually fat or what?

You said: "Oh, and an important thing, - at least to us, living with her- she scratching her throat maybe 10 or more times a minute! She used to do this silently, and ineffectly, but everyone told her to "do it right: one big and load, and that would be", that she now doing it normally loud - but still nothing, just repeating and repeating. It is worse in the evening.
"- an interesting thing: when she was younger, I tried out: if she would not get any dairy for at least 3-4 days, the scratching would lessen, and her body temperature would rise. If milk is added back, the scratching would worsen, and her body temperature would fall." Scratching her throat means with the fingernails. What are you talking about?

You said: "I had the impression, that she had no sight-problem, before her first vaccination. After that one, she cried for hours, than fell asleep, and we can't wake her up for about 12 hours. Weeks later I discovered, that she wouldn't smile, if I came in silently, and lean over her, with breath held. That was the time, we took her to a specialist, who diagnosed her sight-problem." When patients say they haven't been well since vaccination, we sigh. I have no idea why people still embrace that total idiocy and pollute their children with massive amounts of viruses and -- God help us -- foreign proteins. That's nonetheless an important fact of the case.

You said: "Severely nearsighted. Her myopia was diagnosed at 3 months. Her optic nerve is 'underworking,' so it carries less information to the optic cortex than comes in through the eye. She can see things only from very close, maybe 3-10 cm. And she can't see with her left eye (doctor told us it is because she had the wrong glasses prescribed as a toddler, and her brain just shut off her left eye. We discovered this at age 3.5 and tried everything with no success to turn it on again.)" 3-10cm is a distance you can create with your thumb and index finger. That means she can't see anything, so how is she curious about anything? 3-10cm?

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B