Hello all,

Luise mentioned that Hahnemann suggested the intercurrent use of Sulphur and Hepar Sulph during antipsoric treatment, etc. It seems there is some textual confirmation of this suggestion. On page 218 of the Chronic Diseases (BJain, Theorectical Part):

When speaking of treating psora Hahnemann said:

"Nevertheless, in very tedious and complex cases, which are mostly such as have been mismanaged by allopathic treatment, it is nearly always necessary to give again from time to time during the treatment, a dose of Sulphur or Hepar (according to symptoms)......"

So Luise statement in general is correct and only needs the clarification that this is in "tedious and complex cases" and "according to the symptoms".

Sincerely, David Little


---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

Hi David,


I interprete this as meaning to differentiate between Sulphur and Hepar sulph. "according to the symptoms".

And as to the modification of "in tedious and complex cases" -- well, I guess in easy and straightforward cases (which should be rare for psora) the question would not pose itself.

You see it different?

Regards

Luise

As-- the symtoms indicate -- the remedy will be selected.
My own experience has shown that in longstanding cases of Psoric origin the symptoms every so often call forward Sulph and to a lesser degree Hep-sul.
During its action, usually new and persistent symptoms show, while the improvementsigns are clearly noticable. Once these improvementsigns start fading, it then is the time to take action and to find the remedy now suitable for the existing symptom - complex to carry forward the recovery.
So-- above lines from the CD should not be misstaken as being down to what the pratitioner feels as in: Now we need a intercurrent -- lets see which of the two fits better and give it.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise I interprete this as meaning to differentiate between Sulphur and Hepar sulph. "according to the symptoms".

Dear Luise,

It is quite possible that he is speaking of the difference indications between Sulphur and Hepar Sulphuris, which could include things like the affects of heat and cold, etc. He may also be speaking of noticing changes in the symptoms that indicate the need for the sulfates as intercurrents. I have seen cases in the Paris Journals where he used Sulphur and Hepar Sulphuris as intercurrents but not all the time by any means. Sometimes, there was definite changes in the symptoms that led him back to the remedy and at other times the reasons were not that obvious. Simple cases certainly don't need as many remedies as complex cases. According to Hahnemann, no miasm gets as complicated as psora.

Sincerely, David

Quote:

Originally Posted by David It is quite possible that he is speaking of the difference indications between Sulphur and Hepar Sulphuris, which could include things like the affects of heat and cold, etc. He may also be speaking of noticing changes

Hi David, Luise,
It must be a 'sulphuric remedy', it migth as well be Calc-sulph, Cupr-sulph, Nicc-Sulph etc.
The most similar remedy will give the best results.
I.e. in a constitutional Nux-v with suppressed psora, Cupr-sulph, Nicc-Sulph might be the most complemetary remedy on this mineral level. Psora has the tendency to go to a latent state during the treatment. The sulpuric remedy brings some 'fire'to the case again, by wakening the psora. The way I understand it this was what Hahneman was doing.

Kind Regards, Piet

Hi Piet,

I haven't followed all of these posts, so hope this isn't a dumb question, but I thought we *wanted* to get the miasms "latent", so am confused about why we'd use a (sulfuric or other) remedy to "wake" it? Do you mean perhaps that it's gone *partly* latent, so there isn't a full enough case for prescribing on, or ??

Thanks,
Shannon

Hi Shanon,

Our goal of the treatment is not to get the miasms "latent", Latent Psora is the result of the suppression of the primary manifestation on the skin.
It seems the patient is cured, but it is a dangerous situation. After an exiting cause (shock, grief acute disease etc.) it can (again) flare up to serious secondary complaints. Latent Psora is slumbering in the organism, the patient seems to be cured but in fact is not. That's why Hahnemann in his CD warns us not to allow the psora to return to the latent state when the case is 'Halfway of cure', but to finish the treatment. For the same reason Hahnemann wants have a 'slight aggravation' at the end of the cure with the LM-potencies. To be sure that the anti-psoric cure is finished.

Along the same lines I see the sulphuric intercurrents (to counteract the suppression part, the vital force somehow seems to accept).

Kind regards, Piet

dear homeolist,

sulph / hepar intercurrents -

the theoretical discussions are fine, but what finally helps clinically at the bedside is most important.learning from history is great. having respect for the founder of homeopathy is wonderful trait. but science is not history alone. one of the problems with homeopaths is their fixation with things of the past. mere discussing the cases done by hahnemann in the 1800's does not forward the scientific study of a subject. david little is correct when he states that "hahnemann was the alpha and not the omega of homeopathy".

I think H made different experiments in his life and they may not be taken as the final word - clinically. surely, H overprescribed and overused sulphur.

when we talk about complex / tedious / suppressed cases - I think all of us, patients and prescribers will fall in that category. most of us have been vaccinated at one time or the other, have taken allopathy, have taken dissimilar / partial simila homeopathy - so are all us a candidate to get a dose of sulphur ?
again, I think most (or is it all ?) of us (the prescribers) have atleast taken sulphur once. so is the pilgrimage with sulphur over ?
are we free from that primordial skin itch and all that ?

I would also like to draw the attention of the list to my recent post on miasms, where I highlight the obsession with psora and other things.

the clinical experience of vithoulkas, dr roger morrison, dr farok master, dr prafulla vijayakar, dr dhwale etc does not teach the use of sulphur the way hahnemann used ( cases opened with sulph - was that figure 60% ?) as reported in this list. strictly speaking, all our cases are complex and tedious now - so doe we open all cases with sulph 30 ?

again, most (if not all) have taken vaccination - so do we follow sulph with thuja for all ?

I respect history and historians - but I think a medical science is not something which is learnt / taught / discussed based on historical records or theoretical hair splitting. actual clinical practice, actual prescribing experience is what it is all about. again, this has to be in the present times and not in some remote past / centuries ago.

the clinical experience of vithoulkas, dr roger morrison, dr farok master, dr prafulla vijayakar, dr dhwale and others matters to me much more than the sulphur opening percentages in the case records of Hahnemann.

as far as the chronic rx in acute is concerned - I found the 2 posts by dr leela, in the earlier stages of this thread, to be quite compact and sufficient.
that is all that matters clinically.

the chronic rx is indicated in acute excaberation of chronics. in these cases the modalities remain the same. that the chronic rx worked in the acute crisis further confirms the chronic rx.

if the modalities are different (look at thirst, thermals etc) another remedy may be needed for the acute. after the acute phase is over - we get back to deal with the chronic.

perhaps, only this much is needed clinically.

sorry for the typos.

regards and love,

dr manish agarwala

Bravo, Dr Agarwal,

I agree with the thread of your thinking. For our basics/foundation we need to study history and the way it was, but to progress we have to march forward. Progress is ahead, not behind. In any case, since H's time we have added thousands of meds. to our MM - that is progress and homeopathy has progressed, even though some keep harping back to H.and his ways.

Dr Jeff Tikari

Hi Jeff,

... and know it the way it *really* was, i.e. in the case of Hahnemann: what he did teach NOT what many (IMO most!) homeopaths nowadays represent as his teachings.

a certain percentage of these sx have been confirmed to work in the clinic. A certain further percentage may be reliable but are as yet not confirmed.

That is to be expected on the way of process.

But in most cases we do not know which sx belong to which group. Real progress cannot start before that gets established.

The common practice of punching sx into a computer and let the software decide on the likely rx is a jump backwards on any road to progress and in any clinical practice. When this was done by the reps and with relatively few remedies ist was bad enough - but at least in using the reps., while leafing through them and seeing the rubrics in their "environment", we learned a lot "en passant" and - the remedies being relatively few - we still were able to take them in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff that is progress and homeopathy has progressed, even though some keep harping back to H.and his ways.

Well, to whom should we "harp" instead? Sankaran, Sehgal, Scholten, Sequentialists, Heilkunst, essence-prescribing, families, Elyzgia, Bannerji, ........?

In case of miasms: are they - are they not? Are they what Ayurveda says they are? Can we find some parallels in Traditional Chinese Medicine? Again: Sankaran, Scholten, Helmut Trott in Germany, Hanns Breitscheidt, ..............?

All of them??? (To pick out the fitting one for each individual case?)

Well, perhaps you and Manish and quite a few more homeopaths may have the intellectual faculties for that kind of picking out of that amount and maze of information. I identify myself with those of lesser intelligence.

In Germany, for decades, Hahnemann and v. Boenninghausen were openly considered by most to be nothing but historical figures. I learned the Kent way, later Vithoulkas etc.

Now it seems there is a swing back to the "roots" - something I have noticed on the English-speaking MLs and boards also.

I wonder why;-)

There is another reason for "harping back". From Hahnemann and v. B. we have their casebooks. They are so far the only ones where we can actually learn what worked and **what failed**. From all the others we have (almost)nothing but the success stories.

It is said that the best way to learn is by your own mistakes. The second best is to learn by the mistakes of others.

This latter is usually done by interning in hospitals or private clinics where you see success AND failure. Most homeopaths have this not at all or only to a very limited degree (it may be different in India). So everyone has to learn by their own failures only. Considering that at the beginning of each private clinic there are relatively few to very few patients to learn from, it is a very unsatisfactory state both for the progress of the individual practiicioner and also for the progress of the craft.

Regards

Luise