Dear sufferer,

From what you write about your homeopath one would start having doubts about his/her approach, so maybe you need to find somebody else?

Concerning phos and the eye - I'm afraid you have got it all wrong about homeopathy (as I think was mentioned before by somebody else), it does not treat anything about anyone's eyes (or other part of the body or soul) in particular - some of the possible and most often seen in practice symptoms are mentioned in materia medica, but that does not mean that other symptoms, that are not even mentioned anywhere might improve - if the remedy matches your energy pattern and succeeds in eliciitng response from your Vital Force, this means that your Vital Force / Immune system will be strengthened and will deal with all the symptoms that it possible can so that homeopaths often hear about something that has improved AFTER the remedy while the patient never ever mentioned this particular problem BEFORE he receivedf the remedy. Like the patient complained about his back and forgot to mention his headaches, but the headaches improved greatly while the back symptoms were only slightly better - and that sort of thing.

But if your homeopath gives more than one remedy at once - one for this and one for this - I would be very doubtful. Simple logic says that at any point in time there can be only ONE best match, which can of course, change after some time, but at any particular moment the patient is in some state for a certain length of time, when he will BEST respond to the BEST MATCHING remedy.

AGain, I would seriously think about another homeopath - especially if he takes so much time to answer to your questions...

Best,

Elena

Thanks Jacob.

Hi Sufferer,

You asked:
There is no 'set' time. We have to see what the vital force shows us in the form of signs and symptoms. No one can predict when the vital force will show symptoms.

But, let's back up.

We take the case.
We decide if it's acute or chronic.
We rank the symptoms; decide which symptom is the main complaint - determine if there are any concomittants (symptom complex), etc.
We then select a remedy that is homeopathic to the case -- in other words we prescribe on symptom similarity.
At this point it's a matter of analysing what is happening - and knowing what to do next. Ultimately, we have to take our cues from the vital force.

Incidentally, not everyone agrees on what is and isn't a disease symptom. Also, how we rank the symptoms can vary - depending on one's training.

Once a chronic remedy (some call it 'constitutional') is chosen - we give it and then we wait to see how the patient responds. Each case is different, therefore each response will be unique to each patient. This means we can't really predict with any accuracy, how long it takes.


One would need to know why the second remedy was given -- while also knowing the chronic case -- and knowing/understanding what the response was to the first remedy. Confusing? No one can answer this without having the full case at hand to study. This is because each case is unique to itself. We have guidelines - and the possibilities are many. But, really - no one can say what is happening in your case - it would only be guesswork without actually having taken your case and analysed it.

Sometimes a patient will develop an acute at some point after the chronic remedy was given. We usually should wait and see how the vital force deals with the acute. However, there are times when the acute is unbearable and needs to be addressed with a(n) (intercurrent) remedy. Having said that - understand this does not cover all the possibilities of what could be happening once a chronic remedy is given!

This particular aspect/point of analysis in a case is where it gets very complex - and cannot be explained in a nutshell. It takes years of training to learn it! And it takes some talent to be able to teach it without confusing students. It's even more difficult to explain to those who have only a cursory knowledge of homeopathy (therefore have huge knowledge gaps that would move them to draw ill formed conclusions).

If you were a student of homeopathy - I'd say you were asking fabulous questions.

As I said above, sometimes an acute can come up after a chronic ('constitutional') remedy has been given. Sometimes we have to address the acute if the acute symptoms are not resolving on their own - or it's too unbearable for the patient to endure/wait.

There aren't any hard and fast answers in homeopathy.

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Sufferer, you keep asking for people to comment on your 'situation' - but no one has access to your full case - or has seen you in person. So, no one can really say what exactly has happened or is happening in your particular case.

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Sometimes after giving a remedy that is homeopathic to a case - a few symptoms can be left while others are resolved. We've got three choices:
1) wait,
2) repeat the remedy (considering possible adjustment of potency), or
3) reassess the case and see which remedy is indicated by the present left over symptoms.

In other words, once the remedy is given -- the case can change. Once changes take place we have to analyse what's happening and go from there (be it repeat a remedy, change a remedy, adjust potency of the previous remedy - or simply wait a while to let the case settle).

We should only ever prescribe on the present symptoms. Some homeopaths have enough experience to have a good idea of a few possible remedies that might be indicated soon after the first remedy ------ and sometimes they may give the patient the remedy to have on hand -- just in case they need it at some point. But, again - remedies should only be given because the symtpoms call for it.............not as a matter of routine (lest anyone think I'm alluding to this - I'm not).
Does this help?

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

It makes sence in "some casetaking" as in this example.
Lets say i have a patient with a chronic ailment suffering from"...........",what ever this may be. i give the constitutional remedy well indicated for all aspects of this particular patient,(doing the case in detail aprox 1-2 hrs). Then the patient states by the way i am going on a flight and am verry scared/nervous of flying do you have a remedy for my trip?
I say' to take aconite 6C one dose prior to departure'.

Does this help any? We on this forum are not your homeopaths so we dont know all the direct details of your case. This is only an example of a situation that might occur.

Gina Tyler

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

Your question about this wasn't very clear. Especially since you posted earlier saying you'd spoken to your homeopath and s/he assured you this approach was classical.

But reading your most recent post -- I now fully understand what you are asking.

As I said earlier -- we take the case. We sift through all the symptoms -- then rank them in order of importance (we find the main complaint and any concomittants if any --- along with any modalities...). Then we find a remedy which is homeopathic to that group of symptoms that we've carefully selected which represent the now present disease in the case. If a particular symptom that is bothersome to a patient isn't covered by the selected homeopathic remedy -- it doesn't necessarily mean that symptom won't resolve -- it likely means the symptom wasn't important when it came to ranking the symptoms.

SO -- to prescribe a second remedy for one symptom which isn't 'covered' by the first remedy - is just -- well- - guesswork. This defintely isn't 'Classical' Homeopathy.

If someone isn't sure about how to rank symptoms -- or isn't sure which ones are more important than others -- then they will get lost in trying to find a remedy which is truly homeopathic to the case. It's a lazy approach AND it can totally mess up a case! Perhaps this person is a Naturopath and not a homeopath. Or, one possibility is s/he may have prescribed a placebo (calling it a second remedy to cover that worrisome symptom not covered by the first remedy) -- to calm your anxiety about it. But, obviously, we don't know since we don't know your homeopath or your case. I would hope this is the case though - because otherwise it means s/he's guessing with your case!

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Naturopaths do a cursory study of homeopathy (usually only about 6 or 8 weeks in some schools). Unless he went to a separate school to study homeopathy exclusively (4-6 years) - then his knowledge of homeopathy from the Naturopathy school will be limited.

Make no bones about it. If he's given you one remedy as a 'main' remedy - and second remedy to 'cover one symptom that wasn't included in the main remedy' - this is not homeopathy. So forget even calling it homeopathy (never mind the term 'classical' - because prescribing is either homeopathic or it is not - in which case it can be allopathic, isopathic, et al).

It's guesswork because - as I said several times now - we've got to find one remedy that covers the presenting symptoms in a case. One remedy is given only -- then we wait -- then we assess what changes have taken place. If two remedies are given (even if days apart) - when it comes time to review the case some few weeks later - we won't know which remedy caused which changes to happen. It's that simple really.

Yes, sometimes it is hard to decide what is most important in a case -- and this is part of why the practice of homeopathy isn't as easy at it might appear at first glance. There are many variables we have to take into account. And we must go through each case methodically - to make sure we've got a grasp of what's going on (if it's one-sided, incurable, if there are maintaining causes in the way...etc) before we rush into a decision about which remedy is appropriate. Those who cannot fully grasp (for whatever reason) what needs to be done will make desperate prescriptions in the hopes they get lucky. It's a gamble for the patient.

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

If the symptoms are left uncured by the first remedy then reconsider the case and select the proper remedy that covers these symptoms now. This is permissible and is still classical.

sajjad.

I understand what you're saying: your homeopath took your case, then found a remedy to cover everything ---- EXCEPT one symptom. So, he prescribed ANOTHER (second) remedy to cover that symptom since it wasn't found to be covered by the first remedy. This is not homeopathic. I don't know how else to put it.

The rule is - one remedy at a time. Not one remedy today for symptoms #1, 2 & 3...and ANOTHER remedy tomorrow for symptom #4 because symptom #4 isn't 'covered' by the first remedy.

How will he know what the action of the first remedy is if he rushes in and gives another remedy BEFORE observing the actual changes from the first remedy? He won't. It's guesswork. There is nothing to say that symptom # 4 wouldn't be affected by the first remedy!!!!! The only way to find out is to give the first remedy. Wait!! and see what changes take place. If symptoms still remain (while some are resolved) ONLY then can one re-assess what's now needed (repeat of remedy, change of dosage, or change of remedy)!

Don't get caught up on that symptom #4. It very could be that the first remedy resolves it - despite it not being listed under that first remedy! Or - it could be that another remedy will be indicated at some point in future -- which happens to cover that symptom (along with any other symptoms that might be going on at the same time).

We should NEVER prescribe on single symptoms like this. Nor should we ever give more than one remedy at a time.


Hahnemann states implicitly in § 273 that:
"In no case under treatment is it necessary and therefore not permissible to administer to a patient more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time. It is inconceivable how the slightest doubt could exist as to whether it was more consistent with nature and more rational to prescribe a single, simple medicine at one time in a disease or a mixture of several differently acting drugs. It is absolutely not allowed in homeopathy, the one true, simple and natural art of healing, to give the patient at one time two different medicinal substances."

He also warns against prescribing for a single symptom. If you have access to the Organon - read footnote 7b, §57 & 58. I don't have time to transcribe all of them here right now.

Hope this helps clarify things.

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham