Dr.Modi in his book,The Accurate Homeopathy, advises to look for only changed symptoms in an individual, after the onset of disease, be it acute or chronic. He quotes extensively from Organon to justify his thoughts.

Dr.Vijayakar talks about the need to take the physical generals like hot, chilly and even the complexion etc.. into account, particularly for chronic problems, as he subscribes to the view that the person is sick since birth.

Which opinion seems to be more logical? Why?

Murthy

The first is the Boger Boenninghausan approach. It is basic homeopathic analysis that EVERY homeopath should be able to do, irrespective of what they learn afterwords. These are basic homeopathic tools.

The second is a modification of the Kentian approach, and is just as helpful. The characteristic deviated symptoms are just as important for remedy selection.

Use what suits the homeopath and the case best, to arrive at the similimum. One still needs to be aware of what one has to cure. One will not 'cure' physical generals (unless they are deviations from normal) with the remedy. One will only cure the symptoms which are deviated from health. BUT physical and mental generals continue to remain important concomitants that could be included in the totality for remedy selection, if used wisely.

Both are logical. Both are result oriented. Both help to decide the similimum(s).

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

I was expecting a reply from you, but not this fast.

I value your inputs as you know both of them personally, and their methods.

I just got the books of Dr.Vijayakar.Yet to go through in detail. I will come back for more discussion.

Murthy

Dear Murthy,

The position of classical homoeopathy is clear. The remedy is selected on the basis of how the organism is reacting to disease and the guide to the correct remedy are the peculiar and unusual symptoms vis-a-vis the usual or most common pathology. On my reading of the Organon Dr Modi is correct. The homoeopath is concerned with reactions and changes in response to disease. The alternative view is the basis of the "constitutional" approach ( "sick since birth")but that is not classical homoeopathy.

I am new to this forum. I have been looking for a stimulating forum on homoeopathy. This forum seems excellent.

Rod Blackhirst

Dear Blackhirst

Your post is the most typical one, and it reminds me, the position I took ,till a few days ago. But, I am having second thoughts. Perhaps, it is essential to look into the miasmatic aspects also for a succesful prescription, in chronic cases.

I will come back.

Murthy

Dear Murthy,

I would be happy to discuss this issue. I have an open mind on it and am keen to hear views that are not typical. To my thinking, the similimum will always address the miasmic and constitutional background. As always it is a matter of finding the similimum on the basis of the *current* reactions of the organism. This will strengthen the whole organism. Usually this will mean meeting superficial acute symptom pictures as they arise until we work down to the deeper, miasmic layers. But the guide is always the current reactions. We don't prescribe on the basis of miasm, only on the basis of on-going current reactions, which will lead us to the miasmic core.

regards

Rod Blackhirst

Let us use an example Murthy. A patient presents with mild eczema on the backs of his hands. He has treated this with various creams over the years but to no avail.

The strategy here is to investigate this current outbreak and to prescribe on the basis of its peculiar and unusual features - say, worse for cold water.

The fact that this patient has a previous history of asthma is not immediately relevant. They do not have asthma at the moment. Only eczema.

So we treat the eczema with the similimum.

All being well the eczema will retreat and the patient will be relieved of the acute condition.

But they present with eczema again several months later. But now it has changed. The new episode takes a different form. Again we treat with the similimum.

Preceeding this way the patient is eventually free of eczema and the condition does not recur.

But then, months later, the patient presents with asthma.

Now we treat the asthma.

Yes, the eczema and asthma have a common soil - psora - but we always treat according to current reactions, in the order that the symptoms present themselves. The homoeopath will know that asthma lurks below the eczema but you don't prescribe on that basis until the symptoms are there. You cannot treat the *history* of the disease, only the current manifestations (which will follow the history backwards in time under proper treatment).

That is my proceedure anyway.

Rod Blackhirst

O.K.

Snce we two travel in the same boat of learning together, let us start.

We have patients, who suffer from hay fever like symtoms. Every morning, they start sneezing, have nasal blockage, and in general feel miserable.

They come to us; we choose the medicine, based on the 'present' symptoms ; they take it as directed, and they get relief.

But, after a month or so, the same problem revisits with the same modalities.You again give the same medicine, perhaps, in increased potency, and it again provides relief.

So, he keeps on coming to you, almost once in a month, and every time your medicine, provides relief.

The question is why is not this patient getting cured? If 'similia similibus curentar' is the only criteria, it is obvious that the medicine was the similimum, the first time itself, and he should have been cured by it.Why the same set of symptoms, with the same modalities came back again?

Murthy

Dear Dr. Blackhirst

Regards miasmatics in relation to hom. remedies.The remedy needs to be in the current miasmatic family of remedies as writen in;Miasmatic Diagnosis practical tips with clinical comparisons by dr. S K Banerjea

More on miasms by Dr. Leea on www.hpathy.com
go to journal then Hpathy Ezine articles april,may,june2005 by Dr. Leea

Wonderfull in such detail are these articles

Gina Tyler

Obviously, our posts crossed. Anyway, it is good that both of us want to discuss with examples.

You definitely have to treat the 'present' symptoms, no doubt about it. And your example is very valid, as long as the remedy picture is changing, the layers are getting exposed one by one, and you can bring the patient back to health, by choosing the apppropriate similimum,at each stage.

But, in actual practice, these things don't happen, actually that way. How many patients are there, who can never get rid of their tendency towards catching cold, and they stay like that for years together, without revealing any new picture. You keep on giving medicines, and they get palliated for a few days, and the problem comes again.Same problem, same modalities.

Even, Hahn. faced the same dilemma, and he accepts it, in the preface to his chronic diseases.

How do you proceed in such cases?

Murthy