Dear Leela,

Would you pls give an example to show how chronic remedy is indicated in the acute crisis as well?

Best,
Nader

When analysing a case already on constitutional treatment one should check whether the modalities of the acute problem are covered by the constitutional remedy chosen. The real test whether the remedy is indeed a constitutional remedy, is when it even cures an acute exacerbation of the chronic problem or even an acute problem that does not have clear characteristics pointing to an acute remedy.
When a remedy labeld as "constitutional" does not work in most acute exacerbations of the Chronic problem for which it was indicated, then one needs to be sceptical about labeling it as a "constitutional remedy". There are situations as in the case mentioned below, where in one instance of acute exacerbation, the modalities were quitre different. But once the intercurrent remedy completed its action, the consitutional remedy was indicated again.

I have seen this in most cases of allergic reactions, asthma,... we'll I'd say in about 60% of my cases. These are cases where a "constitutional remedy" has been identified.
In other cases, I simply follow the next presenting remedy picture when the previous remedy has completed its action, always taking care to observe improvement in the right mismatic direction as well as fulfilling Hering's Law of cure.

For example: A patient on treatment for chronic lumbar PID (Prolapsed intervertebral disc) had already been on treatment with another homeopath for 3-4 years and was given remedies like Bryonia, Rhus Tox, Colocynth and Arinica in rotation/individually depending on the presentation of the acute symptom picture. As would be expected, he remained in sqaure one in terms of cure.

His constitutional remedy worked out to be Lycopodium. He has needed nothing else ever since through any acute exacerbation of back pain, inspite of going through severe mental and physical stress. The Lyco has helped in almost every general complaint except for an intercurrent dose of Phos 30C once, when the modalities of the back pain were not covered by Lycopodium.

Hope this answers your question.
leela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

I am sure Leela will offer her own answer but Hay Fever would be a good example of this.

This allergic condition can take quite some time to cure and I have had countless cases when Nat mur was needed during the acute crisis as well as treating the ongoing chronic state - often different potencies are used but the remedy remains the same. Many Arsenicum cases like this as well for Hay Fever.

I can also think of Rheumatoid arthritis cases and a lichen planus case.

I am sure there are many others.

Joy

I once cured a man who was allergic to his dog using Nat Sul - on a miasmatic basis.Nat sul being a sycotic .

I currently have a patient experiencing hayfever that moved to a cough
after he took a suppressant..... the symptoms in both the hayfever and cough
fit his constitutional remedy, Kali Iodatum.

Bonnie

Again, I have to quote from an invaluable book, "Chronic diseases , causes and cure" by Ghatak, Translated by PN Bannerjee.

Ghatak states that the local exacerbation of a chronic malady are like the disease affecting distant branches of a tree of disease showing different modalities and sensations while the tree as such will show different symptoms. The similimum for the tree will automatically treat the locals in distant parts.

In some cases, this may involve delay or increased pain and hence the local malady addressed first. And as nature has arranged it, there is a relationship
between the local and the generalthus making the choice of the chronic remedy that much simpler and easier. Also, calming the exacerbation will aloow one to see the general picture uncomplicated with the local one.

Which way to go depends upon the maturity of the prescriber and the condition of the patient. If the prescriber can see thru the case to the general state, then the patient is in safe hands. If some one mixes the local modalities with general modalities, then, the case will drag on.

Regards
venkat

add phos cases where they need it for the chesty things acutely

SK

Dear Members

Ghattacks book is an interesting example of misunderstood treatment of chronic diseases. Even though he makes a solemn attempt to follow what he read in Allen’s and Kent’s, he ultimately fails when prescribing according to these doctrines.

His case [1] on page published on page 220 ff. speaks clearly for his own assumptions.
By analysing the symptoms according his own method he is of the opinion, he assumes, that: A] Sycosis is the culprit, and B} that Causticum is a specific for the sycotic miasm.
On these grounds he applies Causticum, which otherwise is not a simile in this case and after causing the patient prolonged suffering for more than one month by repeating Causticum in different potencies, he finally realizes, that Causticum is not work
He then changes to sulphur following the assumption, that it might be Psora which is inhibiting progress, and on the grounds that sulphur is the main antipsoric remedy.
Once Sulphur was applied the case developed towards cure.

If he had followed the directions given in the Organon, then he would have found Sulphur simile enough to prescribe straight away. So- after all it was a lucky hit, that co-incidentally the main antipsoric was a similimum for the case.

Further down the case he returns to Causticum again after the original symptoms were aggravated. Again, he gives Causticum, ---and as he is an honest observer-- finds, that Causticum had no beneficial effect at all.
If he would have followed the protocol outlined in the CK and the Organon, he would be aware of the rule, that if towards the end of treatment the original symptoms can come forth in a seemingly aggravated manner, which will pass by itself.

After this experience, he does not question his own beliefs, but he remains caught up in his own theories negating the fact, that it is the disease signs and symptoms in every individual case, which determine the remedy selection ONLY and not the classification of the symptoms into the one or other miasmatic category limiting the selection to those remedies thought to be specifics against this category.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Hi Hans,

This has nothing to do with Ghattack's book - I don't know it. But:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans By analysing the symptoms according his own method he is of the opinion, he assumes, that: A] Sycosis is the culprit, and B} that Causticum is a specific for the sycotic miasm. On these grounds he applies Causticum, which otherwise is not a simile in this case and after causing the patient prolonged suffering for more than one month by repeating Causticum in different potencies, he finally realizes, that Causticum is not work. He then changes to sulphur following the assumption, that it might be Psora which is inhibiting progress, and on the grounds that sulphur is the main antipsoric remedy. Once Sulphur was applied the case developed towards cure.

By the instructions given in the CD you give "Sulfur and sometimes Hepar s." for the psoric, Thuja and possibly Nitric Ac. for the sycosic and Mercurius for syphilitic miasms - regardless of similarity!

This is how you (mostly) start up.

Then you give other antipsoric etc. remedies according to similarity - and in between non-miasmatic remedies for intervening acutes.

In between you always give Sulphur etc. again for the miasm.

This is what H. said and this is how he treated. (By your name I think that you may know German - so you can check the latter in one of his published case books.)

So, giving "Causticum for Sycosis regardless of similarity" was quite in line with H's teachings.

(I think I better restate as often before that I am not giving any opinion on whether this mode of treatment is reight -- I am just stating what Hahnemann taught and how he worked.)

Regards

Luise

PS: I have donned my flame-proof clothing:-)

But why did you choose nat-sul rather than one of the other anti-sycotics?

Shannon