On Oct 10, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:

> Okay, this is a point I often get stuck on...
> I do understand that if a remedy "doesn't fit"

Whoa.
It is NEVER appropriate to know if a remedy fits.
You need to know if the client's symptoms fit. That is all.
:-)

> a part of the case
> which is arguably not-a-symptom (e.g. patient is not irritable),

If the patient is not purple-skinned, you would not repertorize "not
purple-skinned"
You'd repertorize "patient has green skin" or whatever he DOES have.
If you focus on what the patient looks like in illness, THAT alone
will tell you the remedy to use.
It is wise to choose your rubrics from the presenting symptoms,
BEFORE you head for the repertory to see what remedies contain those
symptoms.

Unfortunately most homeopathy courses do things backwards, they do
not teach us to study the case. Yet if we do not study the case
(instead of the remedy), we can not expect to find what remedy
"holds" that *case* on its shelves.
Cases only have a dozen or two symptoms. When we look for the remedy
for the case - for those presenting dozen or two symptoms and NO
other symptoms, then knowing some long list of rubrics for any remedy
is not useful. It's the case that needs to be studied, to find the
remedy - You can not start with a remedy to find a case:-)

Patient symptoms will first lead you to a short list of possible
rems, then when you look in the MM, it is only to (hopefully) find
the other symptoms of the patient that you left out of the
repertorizing, or any that DO fit the patient. It is NOT to see "if
the remedy fits" but "if the client fits into the remedy".

Think of a remedy like Nux as a gigantic zigsaw puzzle with 11924
pieces (the number of rubrics for Nux in Radar 9).
Then you have a patient with maybe 30 symptoms of which you choose
say 7 to 10 most relevant and representative ones that represent the
disease condition, for repertorizing.
SO you have these 10 jigsaw pieces (patient sx) and need to find what
picture (remedy) they will fit *into*. What else the jigsaw has is
totally irrelevant. You are only concerned with your patient's
picture, not the jigsaw picture. SO maybe you find 3 remedies where 6
to 9 of the patient's main ten zigsaw pieces do fit. So you look in
the MM at these rems and there you spot that in one of the remedies
on the short, another 12 of the patient's jigsaw pieces (symptoms
not in your 10 chosen for repertorizing, but which were there in the
30 total symptoms you saw). THIS is then the confirmed remedy to use.
We'll call it Nux-v.

What else is in the jigsaw puzzle for the Nux remedy is completely
irrelevant. ONLY your case and its symptoms are relevant and to be
seen.

Another analogy:
See your patient as a book you need to read.
Now you need to go find a library (remedy) that has this book in its
inventory.
What other books it has, are only of interest to other cases that
need those books. They are irrelevant to your case who only has one
book needed.
SO you just need a library IN WHICH YOU CAN FIND your client book.
Never mind what else it has.
There is no rule that a library can only carry YOUR book (for your
patient) if it also carries the full works of Shakespeare and the
banned poems of a nutcase in 1820.
:-)

> But OTOH something like "absence of urging"

"Absence of urging" can have different casues, ONE of which is
constipation.
Another is inactivity of muscles involved, which can be due to
pathology.

You would only use any of those rubrics IF they were key issues in
the case to be repertorized.
So if you start with the top ten symptoms (not rubrics) that describe
your case, and lack of urging is a strongly relevabnt pathology, then
indeed you may use it as a symptom and convert it to a rubric
relevant to the case.

But always look at the case to see what is there.
If absence of urging is a major case feature - fine, use it. If not,
why are you even considering it?

> I would take to mean *constipation* with absence of urging--which
> would definitely be a symptom.

I do not look to see "if something is a symptom".
I start with the case and look for its most critical issue.
Plus the next most critical issue.
Include mind and generals, make it balanced and ensure it gives a
"Complete case picture" - basically a desription of the book you need
to find in some library or other.
THEN and only then, do yo see what rubrics would work to use for
those symptoms.

> If it's a strong symptom in the case

Then I'd use it to seek the "book" of the client.

> *and* the remedy under consideration is a well proved one with ample
> clinical history, then wouldn't you hesitate?

Hesitate about what?
Nux has over 11 thousand rubrics - will you hesitate more for one
than another of the 11 thousand rubrics?
You will go nuts looking at 11 thousand rubrics and expecting any
clients to have all 11 thousand:-) It's not gonna happen even if you
memeorize all 11 thousand for each remedy.
There is no one rubric that "works" more or less than another rubric
within any remedy. If the rubric is there, it works IF the rest fits
too. So - It only matters if your client is covered - properly. Not
if ten thousand prior recorded clients were covered by a ten-rubric
set within the remedy of 11000 rubric options.
Why does it matter what book the library rents out the most often?
YOUR client is the book that matters now :-)
Sometimes you will keep needing to read "works of Shakespeare" and it
will be called popular but maybe this client needs a different group
of ten rubrics within the 11000 for Nux.

> After all, you *do*
> want the remedy to cover those *symptoms* which are important to the
> case...

If you START with the things that are important to the case - then
THOSE will lead you to the best remedy containing them.
It's just important not to then go backwards and expect the remedy to
provide more matches than the client has symptoms.
Remedies will always have huge libraries of rubrics when all you need
is one little book - the RIGHT little book from among that huge
library of them. It does NOT need to be the most poplar book.

> That was my understanding of what a "contra-indication" might be

I truly think a contra-indication is an evil theoretical invention
that cannot fit homeopathy in any valid way.
It's like banning several books in the library that are good books,
but "not read often enough".

> in
> this situation--a *symptom* which is definitely not (or at least in
> the author's experience definitely not) part of the remedy's symptom
> picture.

IMO... No remedy has "one" picture. I think it is a mistake that
leads to more mistakes, to teach that it does:-)
You can not put as many as 11 thousand rubrics into ONE picture. Ten
is plenty for a picture.
So a remedy with 12,000 rubrics where ANY ten can be a picture, has
almost an infinite number of possible pictures in its library. What
you need is the client picture, regardless what remedy has it best
represented in its picture set - and regardless what other
uncountable number pictures the remedy can help..

> The situation could be more difficult in the case of a remedy which
> isn't fully proven, or where the symptom is maybe not so definite in
> the case.

Well the process does not change - you still are looking for the
"book of the client".
It is harder to find a specific book in a small library.

I used one very recently - Beryl.
Only one very specific symptom led me to the remedy - cat had
granulomas in the lungs. It is the only remedy listed for lung
granuloma though I know of others that have fixed lung granulomas.
However other aspects of beryl covered significant case symptoms
including an inverted globulin/albumin ratio in lab findings. SO
while few symptoms of the client were there in Beryl, (or anywhere
else) the two most relevant ones were there in Beryl and not in
other rems. So as long as I did not clutter the repertorizing with
too many rubrics, and I stuck to the case-critical ones, the right
little-used remedy did show up. I did not look at what else Beryl
helps or whether it has "key" symptoms. I only cared about THIS cat
while doing this case. Beryl had all kinds of critical symptoms of
the client represented well.

Later I did get curious. Beryl has 334 rubrics compared to over ten
thousand for a polycrest.
Mind has only two symptoms - delusions he would faint, and that
everything seems unreal.
The cat in question was unable to walk without falling over and her
head was lolling about if she tried to lift it. In this case I just
accepted that the mentals of the cat were not known exactly but....
I liked that they were not inconsistent, as I strongly believe in
matching mind sx as well as the rest [where possible anyhow!]

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Irene,

You're missing my point!
I am not saying to *repertorize* symptoms that aren't there; not at all.
But I'm drawing a distinction between *symptoms* that *are* there, and
*should* be repertorized--possibly including "absence of urging" (of
course if one decides there's no "urging" because the person is going
just fine without it :-) , then no symptom, not to rep; same as with
any other characteristic); and possibly including "phlegmatic"--which
I see cross-referenced to terms such as "inifference" and
"lethargy". Those are not simple absence of the symptom
"irritability"--they are different symptoms in their own right.

I'm making a distinction between simple *absence* of a symptom, versus
the *presence* of a symptom which is not within the remedy picture.

I think that does go nicely back to your point farther on, that we
have to know the *case*, and find the remedy that fits it entirely.
If part of the *case* is a "phlegmatic" disposition, then (at least
from my read of Hahnemann's quote) Nux-v will not suit, because Nux-v
does not cover "phlegmatic", aka indifference, indolence, etc.

As far as "remedy fits", well, we talk about a *shoe* fitting a foot,
with no expectation that we'll modify the foot if needed to fit the
shoe :-) so I'm going to take this as a semantic quibble that I
don't want to pursue. "It takes two to tango", and it also takes two
to "fit"! :-)

Shannon


On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Irene de Villiers wrote:

>
> On Oct 10, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:
>
>> Okay, this is a point I often get stuck on...
>> I do understand that if a remedy "doesn't fit"
>
> Whoa.
> It is NEVER appropriate to know if a remedy fits.
> You need to know if the client's symptoms fit. That is all.
> :-)
>
>> a part of the case
>> which is arguably not-a-symptom (e.g. patient is not irritable),
>
> If the patient is not purple-skinned, you would not repertorize "not
> purple-skinned"
> You'd repertorize "patient has green skin" or whatever he DOES have.
> If you focus on what the patient looks like in illness, THAT alone
> will tell you the remedy to use.
> It is wise to choose your rubrics from the presenting symptoms,
> BEFORE you head for the repertory to see what remedies contain those
> symptoms.
>
> Unfortunately most homeopathy courses do things backwards, they do
> not teach us to study the case. Yet if we do not study the case
> (instead of the remedy), we can not expect to find what remedy
> "holds" that *case* on its shelves.
> Cases only have a dozen or two symptoms. When we look for the remedy
> for the case - for those presenting dozen or two symptoms and NO
> other symptoms, then knowing some long list of rubrics for any remedy
> is not useful. It's the case that needs to be studied, to find the
> remedy - You can not start with a remedy to find a case:-)
>
> Patient symptoms will first lead you to a short list of possible
> rems, then when you look in the MM, it is only to (hopefully) find
> the other symptoms of the patient that you left out of the
> repertorizing, or any that DO fit the patient. It is NOT to see "if
> the remedy fits" but "if the client fits into the remedy".
>
> Think of a remedy like Nux as a gigantic zigsaw puzzle with 11924
> pieces (the number of rubrics for Nux in Radar 9).
> Then you have a patient with maybe 30 symptoms of which you choose
> say 7 to 10 most relevant and representative ones that represent the
> disease condition, for repertorizing.
> SO you have these 10 jigsaw pieces (patient sx) and need to find what
> picture (remedy) they will fit *into*. What else the jigsaw has is
> totally irrelevant. You are only concerned with your patient's
> picture, not the jigsaw picture. SO maybe you find 3 remedies where 6
> to 9 of the patient's main ten zigsaw pieces do fit. So you look in
> the MM at these rems and there you spot that in one of the remedies
> on the short, another 12 of the patient's jigsaw pieces (symptoms
> not in your 10 chosen for repertorizing, but which were there in the
> 30 total symptoms you saw). THIS is then the confirmed remedy to use.
> We'll call it Nux-v.
>
> What else is in the jigsaw puzzle for the Nux remedy is completely
> irrelevant. ONLY your case and its symptoms are relevant and to be
> seen.
>
> Another analogy:
> See your patient as a book you need to read.
> Now you need to go find a library (remedy) that has this book in its
> inventory.
> What other books it has, are only of interest to other cases that
> need those books. They are irrelevant to your case who only has one
> book needed.
> SO you just need a library IN WHICH YOU CAN FIND your client book.
> Never mind what else it has.
> There is no rule that a library can only carry YOUR book (for your
> patient) if it also carries the full works of Shakespeare and the
> banned poems of a nutcase in 1820.
> :-)
>
>> But OTOH something like "absence of urging"
>
> "Absence of urging" can have different casues, ONE of which is
> constipation.
> Another is inactivity of muscles involved, which can be due to
> pathology.
>
> You would only use any of those rubrics IF they were key issues in
> the case to be repertorized.
> So if you start with the top ten symptoms (not rubrics) that describe
> your case, and lack of urging is a strongly relevabnt pathology, then
> indeed you may use it as a symptom and convert it to a rubric
> relevant to the case.
>
> But always look at the case to see what is there.
> If absence of urging is a major case feature - fine, use it. If not,
> why are you even considering it?
>
>> I would take to mean *constipation* with absence of urging--which
>> would definitely be a symptom.
>
> I do not look to see "if something is a symptom".
> I start with the case and look for its most critical issue.
> Plus the next most critical issue.
> Include mind and generals, make it balanced and ensure it gives a
> "Complete case picture" - basically a desription of the book you need
> to find in some library or other.
> THEN and only then, do yo see what rubrics would work to use for
> those symptoms.
>
>> If it's a strong symptom in the case
>
> Then I'd use it to seek the "book" of the client.
>
>> *and* the remedy under consideration is a well proved one with ample
>> clinical history, then wouldn't you hesitate?
>
> Hesitate about what?
> Nux has over 11 thousand rubrics - will you hesitate more for one
> than another of the 11 thousand rubrics?
> You will go nuts looking at 11 thousand rubrics and expecting any
> clients to have all 11 thousand:-) It's not gonna happen even if you
> memeorize all 11 thousand for each remedy.
> There is no one rubric that "works" more or less than another rubric
> within any remedy. If the rubric is there, it works IF the rest fits
> too. So - It only matters if your client is covered - properly. Not
> if ten thousand prior recorded clients were covered by a ten-rubric
> set within the remedy of 11000 rubric options.
> Why does it matter what book the library rents out the most often?
> YOUR client is the book that matters now :-)
> Sometimes you will keep needing to read "works of Shakespeare" and it
> will be called popular but maybe this client needs a different group
> of ten rubrics within the 11000 for Nux.
>
>> After all, you *do*
>> want the remedy to cover those *symptoms* which are important to the
>> case...
>
> If you START with the things that are important to the case - then
> THOSE will lead you to the best remedy containing them.
> It's just important not to then go backwards and expect the remedy to
> provide more matches than the client has symptoms.
> Remedies will always have huge libraries of rubrics when all you need
> is one little book - the RIGHT little book from among that huge
> library of them. It does NOT need to be the most poplar book.
>
>> That was my understanding of what a "contra-indication" might be
>
> I truly think a contra-indication is an evil theoretical invention
> that cannot fit homeopathy in any valid way.
> It's like banning several books in the library that are good books,
> but "not read often enough".
>
>> in
>> this situation--a *symptom* which is definitely not (or at least in
>> the author's experience definitely not) part of the remedy's symptom
>> picture.
>
> IMO... No remedy has "one" picture. I think it is a mistake that
> leads to more mistakes, to teach that it does:-)
> You can not put as many as 11 thousand rubrics into ONE picture. Ten
> is plenty for a picture.
> So a remedy with 12,000 rubrics where ANY ten can be a picture, has
> almost an infinite number of possible pictures in its library. What
> you need is the client picture, regardless what remedy has it best
> represented in its picture set - and regardless what other
> uncountable number pictures the remedy can help..
>
>> The situation could be more difficult in the case of a remedy which
>> isn't fully proven, or where the symptom is maybe not so definite in
>> the case.
>
> Well the process does not change - you still are looking for the
> "book of the client".
> It is harder to find a specific book in a small library.
>
> I used one very recently - Beryl.
> Only one very specific symptom led me to the remedy - cat had
> granulomas in the lungs. It is the only remedy listed for lung
> granuloma though I know of others that have fixed lung granulomas.
> However other aspects of beryl covered significant case symptoms
> including an inverted globulin/albumin ratio in lab findings. SO
> while few symptoms of the client were there in Beryl, (or anywhere
> else) the two most relevant ones were there in Beryl and not in
> other rems. So as long as I did not clutter the repertorizing with
> too many rubrics, and I stuck to the case-critical ones, the right
> little-used remedy did show up. I did not look at what else Beryl
> helps or whether it has "key" symptoms. I only cared about THIS cat
> while doing this case. Beryl had all kinds of critical symptoms of
> the client represented well.
>
> Later I did get curious. Beryl has 334 rubrics compared to over ten
> thousand for a polycrest.
> Mind has only two symptoms - delusions he would faint, and that
> everything seems unreal.
> The cat in question was unable to walk without falling over and her
> head was lolling about if she tried to lift it. In this case I just
> accepted that the mentals of the cat were not known exactly but....
> I liked that they were not inconsistent, as I strongly believe in
> matching mind sx as well as the rest [where possible anyhow!]
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi,

Our understanding of the remedies is to be based on the proving symptoms and
if you go through them it is not difficult to discern what Hahnemann had in his mind
when he wrote that Aph 213.


Dr. William Boericke, on page 475 of his Materia Medica writes, “The typical Nux Vomica patient is thin, spare, quick, active, nervous and irritable.. He does a good deal of mental work; has mental strains and leads a sedentary life, found in prolonged office work, over-study, and close application to business, with its cares and anxieties. This indoor life and mental strain seeks stimulants, coffee, wine, possibly in excess; or, again, he hopes to quiet his excitement, by indulging in the sedative effects of tobacco, if not really a victim to the sedative drugs, like opium, etc. These things are associated with other indulgences; at table, he takes preferably rich and stimulating food; wine and women play their part to make him forget the close application of the day. Late hours are a consequence; a thick head, dyspepsia, and irritable temper are the next day’s inheritance.



Kent so graphically describes : - The mental state is varied, but they all show oversensitiveness; irritable, touchy, sensitive conditions.
- They are never contented, never satisfied; disturbed by their surroundings, and they become irritable, so that they want to tear things, to scold.
- Impulses are strongly marked at times.
- The woman has impulses to destroy her husband or to throw her child into the fire; the impulse is intermingled with violent temper, cannot be contradicted or opposed; if a chair is in the way he hicks it over; if, while undressing, a part of his clothing should catch on a button he would pull it off because he is so mad at it.
- (Like Nit. ac.).
- An uncontrollable state of irritability; it is a weakness and is accompanied by physical weakness; a lack of balance.

So in all the different rubrics that you quoted like the following, Nux-v is indicated if and only if

the Nux-v state of irritability is present, otherwise not. I.e an intellectual / introspective/absent minded

etc can only be benefited homeopathically, if this Nux-v state is present.



> MIND - INTELLECTUAL
> MIND - INTROSPECTION
> MIND - ABSENTMINDED - dreamy
> MIND - AILMENTS FROM - cares, worries
> MIND - AILMENTS FROM - failure - literary, scientific failure
> MIND - ALCOHOLISM - diabetes; with
> MIND - AMBITION - loss of
> MIND - BLOOD; cannot look at - wounds; cannot look at
> MIND - DELUSIONS - die - about to die; one was
> MIND - DISCOMFORT - colors - shiny - agg.


If you refer to classical texts also you find the same thing reiterated.


>From Clarke's Dictionary of MM:

- The irritability and excessive sensitiveness of Nux depicted in the tetanic seizures and drawn facial expression applies to mind as well as body.
- Nux is especially suited to :
- (1) Very particular, zealous persons, inclined to get angry and excited, or of a spiteful, malicious disposition.
- (2) Ardent persons; or disposed to anger, spite, or deception; always irritable or impatient.
- (3) Nervous, melancholic people, troubled with indigestion; venous constitution with tendency to haemorrhoids.
- (4) Thin, irritable, choleric persons with dark hair, who make great mental exertion or lead a sedentary life.
- (5) Vigorous persons of dry habit, tense fibre, ardent and irascible temperament and tenacious disposition.
- (6) Bilious temperament.
- (7) Persons addicted to wine, coffee, or pepper and condiments, who live a sedentary life with much mental exertion.
- (8) Debauchees, thin, irritable, venous.
- (9) Drugged subjects.


- There are few drugs which produce a greater degree of irritability than Nux, running, as it does, to the verge of homicidal and suicidal impulse.
.......
- Incontrollable irritability, and lamentations, complaints and cries (during the sufferings), sometimes with heat, and redness of cheeks.
- Every harmless word offends; every little noise frightens; cannot bear the least, even suitable medicine.
- Humour peevish and malevolent; quarrels, insults, and invectives, with immodest expressions and excessive jealousy, mingled with tears and cries.
- Fiery, excited temperament.
- Ill-humour, vexation, and anger, breaking out in acts of violence.

>From Clarke's Diseases of Heart Arteries

The sensitiveness, irritability and chilliness of Nux, sensitiveness to open air, sour smelling breath, constipation, early waking (3 a.m. ) and falling asleep just when it is time to rise – must all be taken into consideration in prescribing this medicine.



enough of ranting :)

V.T.Yekkirala





> From: furryboots (AT) icehouse (DOT) net
> Subject: Re: [H] Nux vomica w/o irritability?
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:10:10 -0700
> To: vtyekkirala (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2009, at 8:08 AM, V.T. Yekkirala wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > Hahnemann specifically forbids giving Nux-v where there is no
> > irritability
>
>
> He would not have said such a thing. Your quotation does not support
> the idea either......
> I believe you misinterpreted that........
>
> Hahnemann said you would "Seldom effect a rapid cure" using Nux in a
> person who is Mild and Phlegmatic.
> That is not that same as saying irritability (or anything else) must
> be there:-)
>
> An analogy: Just because the apple is green does not mean everything
> green is an apple :-)
>
> One must start with the presenting symptoms. As Hahnemann does in his
> example - NOT with something supposedly "missing". SO Hahnemann says
> if presenting symptoms are Mild and Phlegmatic - it will not lead to
> Nux.
> The presenting symptoms MUST do the leading.
> He does not use negative approach of "forbidding" any remedy for
> irritability (or any other feature) as you claim.
> He starts with presenting symptoms.
> He never looks for what is not there.
> Nor should we:-)
>
> If irritability is not there, that is irrelevant.
> What IS there is the only relevant stuff.
> If what's there leads to Nux, then use Nux.
> If what's there does not lead to Nux, then use what it does lead to.
>
> It's the risk of going backwards (looking for remedy features in the
> patient)
> that makes it a bad idea to know anything at all about remedies!!!
>
> Knowing about remedies is a disadvantage unless you let the
> presenting symptoms do the leading.
> Don't call everything green an apple :-)
>
> A Nux case need not be irritable. But the CASE symptoms will lead you
> to Nux if they are right for Nux.
> Example of a typical Nux case, with no irritability:
> MIND - INTELLECTUAL
> MIND - INTROSPECTION
> MIND - ABSENTMINDED - dreamy
> MIND - AILMENTS FROM - cares, worries
> MIND - AILMENTS FROM - failure - literary, scientific failure
> MIND - ALCOHOLISM - diabetes; with
> MIND - AMBITION - loss of
> MIND - BLOOD; cannot look at - wounds; cannot look at
> MIND - DELUSIONS - die - about to die; one was
> MIND - DISCOMFORT - colors - shiny - agg.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene

>

On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:

If part of the *case* is a "phlegmatic" disposition, then (at least
from my read of Hahnemann's quote) Nux-v will not suit, because Nux-v
does not cover "phlegmatic", aka indifference, indolence, etc.

Shannon,

Paul Herscu has a website detailing his research on influenza. At the
following link (<http://www.hersculaboratoryflu.org/research/
2008_3.html>) he talks about the flu strain that appears to have
started in Mexico City earlier this year and about the model he has
developed to assist in deciding whether a patient with the flu need
the genus epidemicus or a different remedy. For this particular
strain, at this point in time, he believes that the genus epidemicus
is Nux Vomica. Below are a couple of quotes from his work.

The remedy for the genus epidemicus for 2008-2009 was and still is,
Nux vomica. Please note that the vast majority of patients in the
midst of this influenza will not have any of the key notes or common
features of Nux vomica, which is why homeopaths did not give and may
not think to give this remedy......... People needing Nux vomica tend
to be irritable, but during this epidemic, the irritable people
needed Bryonia, and the people needing Nux vomica were dull, flat and
indifferent.


Marcy

Ah, that is very interesting!
"Dull, flat and indifferent"--I wish I understood the term
"phlegmatic" well enough to know whether that is or isn't consistent
with the term. Some definitions I find: " Having or suggesting a
calm, sluggish temperament; unemotional." Whether there's actual
contradiction or not, I guess I don't know--but if not a
contradiction, at least I find it easy to see why one might call it
that! / :-/

I see Nux under these rubrics: Dullness (as a 4, no less);
Indifference (2); Answer, aversion to (another 4)... So, it may just
be that it's not the *commonly understood* picture of Nux-v that these
patients fit, not so much that they don't fit the past proving or
clinical picture? It certainly does also go against my suggestion of
oversensitivity/overreactivity being at the core...

Do you happen to know, or does he mention, what he understands the
"cycle" of nux-v to be? And/or, does he tell what had led him to give
nux-v to these very un-nux-v-like folks, and find it to work? :-)
(My guess is that it was not an accidental discovery, and not a shock
to him!)

Shannon


On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Ontheridge wrote:

>
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:
>
>>
>> If part of the *case* is a "phlegmatic" disposition, then (at least
>> from my read of Hahnemann's quote) Nux-v will not suit, because Nux-v
>> does not cover "phlegmatic", aka indifference, indolence, etc.
>>
> Shannon,
>
> Paul Herscu has a website detailing his research on influenza. At
> the following link (<http://www.hersculaboratoryflu.org/research/2008_3.html
> >) he talks about the flu strain that appears to have started in
> Mexico City earlier this year and about the model he has developed
> to assist in deciding whether a patient with the flu need the genus
> epidemicus or a different remedy. For this particular strain, at
> this point in time, he believes that the genus epidemicus is Nux
> Vomica. Below are a couple of quotes from his work.
>
> The remedy for the genus epidemicus for 2008-2009 was and still is,
> Nux vomica. Please note that the vast majority of patients in the
> midst of this influenza will not have any of the key notes or common
> features of Nux vomica, which is why homeopaths did not give and may
> not think to give this remedy......... People needing Nux vomica
> tend to be irritable, but during this epidemic, the irritable people
> needed Bryonia, and the people needing Nux vomica were dull, flat
> and indifferent.
>
>
> Marcy
>

VTY,

I certainly understand what you're saying, and why you are saying it--
I mean, that, based on your reading of these "classics", nux-v is only
indicated when that familiar characteristic emotional state is
present. But then how do you reconcile experiences such as Herscu's
"dull, flat, and indifferent" pts being cured by nux-v, and also the
several others that were mentioned here?

I have thoughts about that "how", but what do you think?

Shannon


On Oct 12, 2009, at 1:48 PM, V.T. Yekkirala wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Our understanding of the remedies is to be based on the proving
> symptoms and
> if you go through them it is not difficult to discern what Hahnemann
> had in his mind
> when he wrote that Aph 213.
>
> Dr. William Boericke, on page 475 of his Materia Medica writes, “The
> typical Nux Vomica patient is thin, spare, quick, active, nervous
> and irritable. He does a good deal of mental work; has mental
> strains and leads a sedentary life, found in prolonged office work,
> over-study, and close application to business, with its cares and
> anxieties. This indoor life and mental strain seeks stimulants,
> coffee, wine, possibly in excess; or, again, he hopes to quiet his
> excitement, by indulging in the sedative effects of tobacco, if not
> really a victim to the sedative drugs, like opium, etc. These things
> are associated with other indulgences; at table, he takes preferably
> rich and stimulating food; wine and women play their part to make
> him forget the close application of the day. Late hours are a
> consequence; a thick head, dyspepsia, and irritable temper are the
> next day’s inheritance.
>
> Kent so graphically describes : - The mental state is varied, but
> they all show oversensitiveness; irritable, touchy, sensitive
> conditions.
> - They are never contented, never satisfied; disturbed by their
> surroundings, and they become irritable, so that they want to tear
> things, to scold.
> - Impulses are strongly marked at times.
> - The woman has impulses to destroy her husband or to throw her
> child into the fire; the impulse is intermingled with violent
> temper, cannot be contradicted or opposed; if a chair is in the way
> he hicks it over; if, while undressing, a part of his clothing
> should catch on a button he would pull it off because he is so mad
> at it.
> - (Like Nit. ac.).
> - An uncontrollable state of irritability; it is a weakness and is
> accompanied by physical weakness; a lack of balance.
>
> So in all the different rubrics that you quoted like the following,
> Nux-v is indicated if and only if
> the Nux-v state of irritability is present, otherwise not. I.e an
> intellectual / introspective/absent minded
> etc can only be benefited homeopathically, if this Nux-v state is
> present.
>
> > MIND - INTELLECTUAL
> > MIND - INTROSPECTION
> > MIND - ABSENTMINDED - dreamy
> > MIND - AILMENTS FROM - cares, worries
> > MIND - AILMENTS FROM - failure - literary, scientific failure
> > MIND - ALCOHOLISM - diabetes; with
> > MIND - AMBITION - loss of
> > MIND - BLOOD; cannot look at - wounds; cannot look at
> > MIND - DELUSIONS - die - about to die; one was
> > MIND - DISCOMFORT - colors - shiny - agg.
>
> If you refer to classical texts also you find the same thing
> reiterated.
>
> From Clarke's Dictionary of MM:
>
> - The irritability and excessive sensitiveness of Nux depicted in
> the tetanic seizures and drawn facial expression applies to mind as
> well as body.
> - Nux is especially suited to :
> - (1) Very particular, zealous persons, inclined to get angry and
> excited, or of a spiteful, malicious disposition.
> - (2) Ardent persons; or disposed to anger, spite, or deception;
> always irritable or impatient.
> - (3) Nervous, melancholic people, troubled with indigestion;
> venous constitution with tendency to haemorrhoids.
> - (4) Thin, irritable, choleric persons with dark hair, who make
> great mental exertion or lead a sedentary life.
> - (5) Vigorous persons of dry habit, tense fibre, ardent and
> irascible temperament and tenacious disposition.
> - (6) Bilious temperament.
> - (7) Persons addicted to wine, coffee, or pepper and condiments,
> who live a sedentary life with much mental exertion.
> - (8) Debauchees, thin, irritable, venous.
> - (9) Drugged subjects.
>
> - There are few drugs which produce a greater degree of
> irritability than Nux, running, as it does, to the verge of
> homicidal and suicidal impulse.
> ......
> - Incontrollable irritability, and lamentations, complaints and
> cries (during the sufferings), sometimes with heat, and redness of
> cheeks.
> - Every harmless word offends; every little noise frightens; cannot
> bear the least, even suitable medicine.
> - Humour peevish and malevolent; quarrels, insults, and invectives,
> with immodest expressions and excessive jealousy, mingled with tears
> and cries.
> - Fiery, excited temperament.
> - Ill-humour, vexation, and anger, breaking out in acts of violence.
>
> From Clarke's Diseases of Heart Arteries
>
> The sensitiveness, irritability and chilliness of Nux, sensitiveness
> to open air, sour smelling breath, constipation, early waking (3
> a.m. ) and falling asleep just when it is time to rise – must all be
> taken into consideration in prescribing this medicine.
>
> enough of ranting :)
> V.T.Yekkirala
>
>
>
>
>
> > From: furryboots (AT) icehouse (DOT) net
> > Subject: Re: [H] Nux vomica w/o irritability?
> > Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:10:10 -0700
> > To: vtyekkirala (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
> >
> >
> > On Oct 11, 2009, at 8:08 AM, V.T. Yekkirala wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hahnemann specifically forbids giving Nux-v where there is no
> > > irritability
> >
> >
> > He would not have said such a thing. Your quotation does not support
> > the idea either......
> > I believe you misinterpreted that........
> >
> > Hahnemann said you would "Seldom effect a rapid cure" using Nux in a
> > person who is Mild and Phlegmatic.
> > That is not that same as saying irritability (or anything else) must
> > be there:-)
> >
> > An analogy: Just because the apple is green does not mean everything
> > green is an apple :-)
> >
> > One must start with the presenting symptoms. As Hahnemann does in
> his
> > example - NOT with something supposedly "missing". SO Hahnemann says
> > if presenting symptoms are Mild and Phlegmatic - it will not lead to
> > Nux.
> > The presenting symptoms MUST do the leading.
> > He does not use negative approach of "forbidding" any remedy for
> > irritability (or any other feature) as you claim.
> > He starts with presenting symptoms.
> > He never looks for what is not there.
> > Nor should we:-)
> >
> > If irritability is not there, that is irrelevant.
> > What IS there is the only relevant stuff.
> > If what's there leads to Nux, then use Nux.
> > If what's there does not lead to Nux, then use what it does lead to.
> >
> > It's the risk of going backwards (looking for remedy features in the
> > patient)
> > that makes it a bad idea to know anything at all about remedies!!!
> >
> > Knowing about remedies is a disadvantage unless you let the
> > presenting symptoms do the leading.
> > Don't call everything green an apple :-)
> >
> > A Nux case need not be irritable. But the CASE symptoms will lead
> you
> > to Nux if they are right for Nux.
> > Example of a typical Nux case, with no irritability:
> > MIND - INTELLECTUAL
> > MIND - INTROSPECTION
> > MIND - ABSENTMINDED - dreamy
> > MIND - AILMENTS FROM - cares, worries
> > MIND - AILMENTS FROM - failure - literary, scientific failure
> > MIND - ALCOHOLISM - diabetes; with
> > MIND - AMBITION - loss of
> > MIND - BLOOD; cannot look at - wounds; cannot look at
> > MIND - DELUSIONS - die - about to die; one was
> > MIND - DISCOMFORT - colors - shiny - agg.
> >
> > Namaste,
> > Irene
>
>
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.

Can I interfere?????



You will see those unusual pictures of NV in 2 circumstances: when the
patient's energy is exhausted,he/she still is a NV but does not have the
ability to be irritable, no reactivity, like in adrenal exhaustion; and in
NV patients who manage to introvert their reactions because of education,
social constraints, etc,.....



The "irritability" of NV comes back as the treatment goes on and their
either get their energy back or receive the ability to express their inner
feelings.......which can lead to some sudden surprises, especially in the
workplace.





Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

My blog www.drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com is still active.

-------Original Message-------



From: Shannon & Bob Nelson

Date: 13/10/2009 11:19:27 a.m.

To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com

Subject: Re: [H] Nux vomica w/o irritability?



Ah, that is very interesting!

"Dull, flat and indifferent"--I wish I understood the term

"phlegmatic" well enough to know whether that is or isn't consistent

With the term. Some definitions I find: " Having or suggesting a

Calm, sluggish temperament; unemotional." Whether there's actual

Contradiction or not, I guess I don't know--but if not a

Contradiction, at least I find it easy to see why one might call it

That! / :-/



I see Nux under these rubrics: Dullness (as a 4, no less);

Indifference (2); Answer, aversion to (another 4)... So, it may just

Be that it's not the *commonly understood* picture of Nux-v that these

Patients fit, not so much that they don't fit the past proving or

Clinical picture? It certainly does also go against my suggestion of

Oversensitivity/overreactivity being at the core...



Do you happen to know, or does he mention, what he understands the

"cycle" of nux-v to be? And/or, does he tell what had led him to give

Nux-v to these very un-nux-v-like folks, and find it to work? :-)

(My guess is that it was not an accidental discovery, and not a shock

To him!)



Shannon





On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Ontheridge wrote:



>

> On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:

>

>>

>> If part of the *case* is a "phlegmatic" disposition, then (at least

>> from my read of Hahnemann's quote) Nux-v will not suit, because Nux-v

>> does not cover "phlegmatic", aka indifference, indolence, etc.

>>

> Shannon,

>

> Paul Herscu has a website detailing his research on influenza. At

> the following link (<http://www.hersculaboratoryflu.org/research/2008_3
HTML

> >) he talks about the flu strain that appears to have started in

> Mexico City earlier this year and about the model he has developed

> to assist in deciding whether a patient with the flu need the genus

> epidemicus or a different remedy. For this particular strain, at

> this point in time, he believes that the genus epidemicus is Nux

> Vomica. Below are a couple of quotes from his work.

>

> The remedy for the genus epidemicus for 2008-2009 was and still is,

> Nux vomica. Please note that the vast majority of patients in the

> midst of this influenza will not have any of the key notes or common

> features of Nux vomica, which is why homeopaths did not give and may

> not think to give this remedy......... People needing Nux vomica

> tend to be irritable, but during this epidemic, the irritable people

> needed Bryonia, and the people needing Nux vomica were dull, flat

> and indifferent.

>

>

> Marcy

>

That makes sense.
What do you suppose would have been the pointers to the remedy that
Herscu might have used for those flu patients? (And presumably
Bryonia too could become depleted enough not to be irritable--or would
it pass out of the realm of Bryonia at that point???)



On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:43 PM, Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. wrote:

> Can I interfere?????
>
>
>
> You will see those unusual pictures of NV in 2 circumstances: when the
> patient's energy is exhausted,he/she still is a NV but does not have
> the
> ability to be irritable, no reactivity, like in adrenal exhaustion;
> and in
> NV patients who manage to introvert their reactions because of
> education,
> social constraints, etc,.....
>
>
>
> The "irritability" of NV comes back as the treatment goes on and their
> either get their energy back or receive the ability to express their
> inner
> feelings.......which can lead to some sudden surprises, especially
> in the
> workplace.
>
>
>
> 
>
> Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
>
> "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
>
> Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
>
> My blog www.drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com is still active.
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
>
>
> From: Shannon & Bob Nelson
>
> Date: 13/10/2009 11:19:27 a.m.
>
> To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>
> Subject: Re: [H] Nux vomica w/o irritability?
>
>
>
> Ah, that is very interesting!
>
> "Dull, flat and indifferent"--I wish I understood the term
>
> "phlegmatic" well enough to know whether that is or isn't consistent
>
> With the term. Some definitions I find: " Having or suggesting a
>
> Calm, sluggish temperament; unemotional." Whether there's actual
>
> Contradiction or not, I guess I don't know--but if not a
>
> Contradiction, at least I find it easy to see why one might call it
>
> That! / :-/
>
>
>
> I see Nux under these rubrics: Dullness (as a 4, no less);
>
> Indifference (2); Answer, aversion to (another 4)... So, it may just
>
> Be that it's not the *commonly understood* picture of Nux-v that these
>
> Patients fit, not so much that they don't fit the past proving or
>
> Clinical picture? It certainly does also go against my suggestion of
>
> Oversensitivity/overreactivity being at the core...
>
>
>
> Do you happen to know, or does he mention, what he understands the
>
> "cycle" of nux-v to be? And/or, does he tell what had led him to give
>
> Nux-v to these very un-nux-v-like folks, and find it to work? :-)
>
> (My guess is that it was not an accidental discovery, and not a shock
>
> To him!)
>
>
>
> Shannon
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Ontheridge wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>
>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>> If part of the *case* is a "phlegmatic" disposition, then (at least
>
>>> from my read of Hahnemann's quote) Nux-v will not suit, because
>>> Nux-v
>
>>> does not cover "phlegmatic", aka indifference, indolence, etc.
>
>>>
>
>> Shannon,
>
>>
>
>> Paul Herscu has a website detailing his research on influenza. At
>
>> the following link (<http://www.hersculaboratoryflu.org/research/2008_3
> HTML
>
>>> ) he talks about the flu strain that appears to have started in
>
>> Mexico City earlier this year and about the model he has developed
>
>> to assist in deciding whether a patient with the flu need the genus
>
>> epidemicus or a different remedy. For this particular strain, at
>
>> this point in time, he believes that the genus epidemicus is Nux
>
>> Vomica. Below are a couple of quotes from his work.
>
>>
>
>> The remedy for the genus epidemicus for 2008-2009 was and still is,
>
>> Nux vomica. Please note that the vast majority of patients in the
>
>> midst of this influenza will not have any of the key notes or common
>
>> features of Nux vomica, which is why homeopaths did not give and may
>
>> not think to give this remedy......... People needing Nux vomica
>
>> tend to be irritable, but during this epidemic, the irritable people
>
>> needed Bryonia, and the people needing Nux vomica were dull, flat
>
>> and indifferent.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Marcy
>
>>
>
>
>
>

On Oct 12, 2009, at 11:48 AM, V.T. Yekkirala wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Our understanding of the remedies is to be based on the proving
> symptoms and
> if you go through them it is not difficult to discern what
> Hahnemann had in his mind
> when he wrote that Aph 213.


So we both think - except I see no "exclusions" or "forbidden"
occasions. Boericke lists a FEW characteristics of what he calls a
"typical" case. There are also atypical cases. If you exclude things
you will not find the more tricky atypical cases:-)
It is easy to find the typical ones:-)
Nowhere does *Hahnemann* suggest using a missing symptom as an
exclusionary rubric for remedy selection, as was suggested for Nux
here on the list.
[And if he did I would respectfully disagree with him based on
successful cases - but he does not suggest this.]


> Dr. William Boericke, on page 475 of his Materia Medica writes,
> “The typical Nux Vomica.................

> Kent so graphically describes : - The mental state is varied, but
> they all show oversensitiveness; irritable, touchy, sensitive
> conditions.

He is using hyperbole to illustrate. The Nux-v cases do not ALL show
irritability..... The typical ones do .....
The one I posted as an example, did not.
>
> So in all the different rubrics that you quoted like the
> following, Nux-v is indicated if and only if
> the Nux-v state of irritability is present, otherwise not

Not so. This is a Nux case minus the irritability.

> . I.e an intellectual / introspective/absent minded
> etc can only be benefited homeopathically, if this Nux-v state is
> present.

It would indeed be benefitted homeopathically per Hahnemann's rules
and Boericke's rules ..and my experience.......
(even if Kent would have missed this atypical case). In this case I
agree with Hahnemann not Kent. Nor do I think Kent was trying to
teach exclusion anyway - only that he had not personally seen a Nux
case without irritability.

AS I said - if you do this rote exclusionary approach, you miss ALL
the atypical cases, as well as many of the the animal cases, and that
is not the highest ideal of a good homeopath - to find only the
typical cass. A great homeopath also finds the atypical or rare
cases such as this one:


>
> > MIND - INTELLECTUAL
> > MIND - INTROSPECTION
> > MIND - ABSENTMINDED - dreamy
> > MIND - AILMENTS FROM - cares, worries
> > MIND - AILMENTS FROM - failure - literary, scientific failure
> > MIND - ALCOHOLISM - diabetes; with
> > MIND - AMBITION - loss of
> > MIND - BLOOD; cannot look at - wounds; cannot look at
> > MIND - DELUSIONS - die - about to die; one was
> > MIND - DISCOMFORT - colors - shiny - agg.
>
> If you refer to classical texts also you find the same thing
> reiterated.

It is not the same thing.
Nobody with sense specifically suggests exclusion.

> From Clarke's Dictionary of MM:
>
> - The irritability and excessive sensitiveness of Nux depicted in
> the tetanic seizures and drawn facial expression applies to mind as
> well as body.

Again it is a typical case not an atypical Nux.
It is dangerous teaching remedies this way specifically because it
encourages homeopaths to work backwards and miss a lot of good
cures. they are too busy looking for remedy in the patient.

Back in Kent's day we could not find atypical cases as well as we can
with software like Radar etc. Now we CAN find the atypical cases more
readily, and it makes us better homeopaths. Maybe Kent missed some.
He would have to miss some if he was working backwards too.

> - Nux is especially suited to :

Yes but that is special. here are the "less especially suited" cases
as well:-)
So Clarke is also not exclusionary.

So I still disagree with your original statement here claimed to be
from Hahnemann and you have not shown *him* (or anyone else) saying
this anywhere.

>
> > > Hahnemann specifically forbids giving Nux-v where there is no
> > > irritability


Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Ontheridge wrote:

(Herscu quoted) ..... People needing Nux vomica tend
> to be irritable, but during this epidemic, the irritable people
> needed Bryonia, and the people needing Nux vomica were dull, flat and
> indifferent.

Very interesting, thanks Marcy.

Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."