"Homoeopathy is Mathematics and every homoeopath- must arrive at the same similimum in a given case, provided all have the same perception.. We can predict what will happen next - hence the name Predictive Homoeopathy."
Dr. Prafull VIJAYAKAR

Dear colleagues,

I highly recommend reading the following books by Dr Prafull Vijayakar:

Predictive Homeopathy Part 1
Theory of Suppression
By Dr. Prafull VIJAYAKAR

Recommended for students and practitioners, this easy to read text deepens one's understanding of Hering's "Law of Cure" and facilitates the second prescription.

Predictive Homeopathy Part 2
Theory of Acutes
By Dr. Prafull VIJAYAKAR

Using key symptoms from the "ACTIVITY/THERMAL/THIRST/MENTALS axis", the author classifies remedies and shows how to select the right one. Helps you treat the "man in disease rather than the disease in man".

Predictive Homeopathy Part 3
The End of Myasmtion of Miasms-Mathematics of Human Defence against Diseases
By Dr. Prafull VIJAYAKAR


The above books can answer many fundamental questions. It's worth reading !!!

Regards,
Christo Karaivanov

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christo Karaivanov "Homoeopathy is Mathematics and every homoeopath- must arrive at the same similimum in a given case, provided all have the same perception..

sure, right.
Problem comes in: no two beings likely have the same perception.

best,

David Hartley

The Vijayakar's concept is summarised here:
http://www.predictivehomeopathy.com/home/report.htm

I would be glad to hear your oppinions about his theory.

Good luck,
Christo

Hi Christo,

I read some of it. Again I came across Hering's law, which remeinded me of a question I have meant to ask often before:


Say you have a severe chronic coryza. You give a remedy, the coryza gets better and you get a bronchitis. Now that would be from above down - the right direction. However it would also be from a less important organ to a more important.

I have only read a lilttle. I should say that his statement about the "mathematics of homeopathy" so far is an illusion. This is the way it ought to be and we may hope that one day we shall know enough that it will be a fact.

I wonder how he determines the innate characters - on a scale for each of them?

And then again pops up the morals: by what are they to be judged? By the values of the doctor or by the values of the patient? (Hi Shannon:-))

Specifically in India of to-day that should be a very pertinent difference! In the evaluation of those "innates" and their sub-categories: no, I do not think that there will ever be any mathematical way of determining.

There may be persons who are definitely introverted or extroverted, behave as one or the other all the time and in every situation.So that in a "snapshot-situation" as by the doctor he can determine it. But I should think they are few. Just as an example.

The old and often discussed problem of mind-symptoms and of "prescribing for the person".

As to the 3 miasms: that's the way I learned it, also the matter with the 3 embronyonic layers is part of the naturopathic thinking and many therapists prescribe on that base.

Whether all these different approaches can be taken together to make a reasonable "gestalt" -- no idea.

Well, that's enough from me:-)

Regards

Luise

Re the coryza / bronchitis......

My understanding of "from above to below" is an evolution within organs of the same importance, say for example the right order of an eruption would be face to chest to limbs.

Nose to lung is evolution from the outside to the inside, what you expect is from a deeper respiratory organ (lung) to a superficial one (nose).

The "geography" of the organs seems to be secondary to their life sustaining importance.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.

Hi JROZ,

Yes, that makes sense.

But such contradictions may occur in other ways.

For instance, it is I think well accepted that eczema and asthma are connected. Now the asthma ist just the most discernible symptom of some inner disorder some pathological state of the lungs, which again is probably due to some allergy.

There is at least a theory that the life force by its own power tries to manifest its disturbance on the organ less/least important to maintenance of life, which would (to some extent at least) be the skin.

So it is reasonable to suppose that a person in a relatively weak state of his life force may have asthma, afterwards, as he (and it) gets stronger (without treatment), there will be the connected eczema.

So you treat and the skin eruption disappears while the asthma comes back on.

Now: would that be the wrong direction because it is going from outside in and additionally from the less important organ to the more important - or would it be the right direction, because it is the reversal in time?

Regards

Luise

Hi Luise,

I haven't read enough of the work to speak to *it* very much (tho I will try to--it sounds interesting!), but:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J. Rozencwajg I wonder how he determines the innate characters - on a scale for each of them?

I also don't know what he means by "innate characters", but "the values of the doctor" really won't have much to do with the process of cure, except sometimes to interfere with the doctor identifying the correct remedy if s/he has misjudged. For e.g., if the patient has a like/dislike/habit that the doctor interprets as (for a random example) "malicious", and bases the prescription on remedies that cover "malicious" behavior, *but* in fact the like/dislike/habit or whatever is from a *different* basis (maybe learned, maybe a cultural difference, whatever), then the doctor will be looking in the wrong ballpark for the remedy, and is more apt to miss it than to find it.

Similarly if the issue is something with a more moralistic flavor.

Does that make sense, or would you like to try me on another specific example?

Shannon

We can manipulate the suppositions in many ways.......

In a straightforward way, from skin to lungs is the incorrect way as it goes deeper and in a more dangerous organ................unless there was another skin ailment before, that will reappear later, like cradle cap. According to Vijayakar, lung and skin being the same embryological level, the lung could now be affected because it is a faster and easier elimination organ than the skin, so if this is the case, a kind of "healing, detoxifying crisis, it would not matter......

I will sneak out of this question/debate by saying that it depends on the individual: asthma might be a deeper disease allowed by a lower vital force, but can also be the result of suppression of pathology; when that suppression is removed, the asthma might come back but probably with a different expression in modalities and gravity, showing a different level of energy.

So the gravity of the recurrent asthma would be here the deciding factor of whether it is a good or bad situation rather than the exact direction of cure. Linearity is not natural, there are ups and downs and we must account for it, taking in the equation all the factors (gravity, organ, time,general status) to decide where the patient is in the scale of healing.

I am not sure I completely answered your question..........

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

Hi Luise,

That is the sort of question that needs to be answered by considering the *meaning* behind each symptom. Which *is* more troublesome, asthma or eczema? Asthma can stop you from breathing; eczema makes you itch. Which is more troublesome?

There can be questions of degree: A slight asthma is less debilitating/dangerous than eczema so bad it leaves the skin raw and infected. In that case the move to "slight" asthma would be "direction of cure", and I've no idea whether that ever happens! But comparing asthma and eczema *of similar degree*, I think there's no question about what is consistent with direction of cure.

So, when we see eczema leave and asthma come, we are not happy!

Does that make sense?

Shannon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J We can manipulate the suppositions in many ways.......

Hi Dr. J and those interested, Vijaykar has the skin as Ectoderm and the respiratory tract (functional - mucus membranes) as Endoderm and the lungs (parenchyma - structural) as Mesoderm.

His theory of suppression places ectoderm to endoderm as the 2nd stage of disease suppression - so that covers the skin to the respiratory tract.

I have been reading this material off and on, and the system he has devised, within his own framework, does sound reasonably straightforward, however as you and others have pointed out, there are always exceptions to be found.

Re the directions of cure he has as we all know:

more important to less important
above downwards
inside out
centre to periphery

These categories have been interpreted by him based on the embryological genesis and that is what makes his offering rather interesting.

He discusses that suppression occurs due to the method that some practitioners have of prescribing eg. giving Blatta orient. or Ars alb for the asthma, only to find that even though the astma has cleared, there is another condition presenting itself at a deeper embryological layer. He insists that the right constitutional simillimum be given to prevent this.



"Ectoderm is least important when it forms skin and most important when it forms brain and neural tissue. Endoderm and mesoderm give rise to the organs which are in between. How beautifully the circle becomes complete! From ectoderm - to endoderm - to mesoderm - to neuroectoderm - to ectoderm once again. This shows a complete connection between all tissues from ectoderm b ack to ectoderm" (p.37-38)

I think it is worth reading the whole book - it is not a big one or an expensive one, and offers a very interesting take on the embryological layers, their expression by those in psora, sycosis, or syphilis. I can see why those practitioners looking for an ordered practical system of prescribing would be attracted to his method.

I suggest everyone have a read - and then it would be easier to discuss.

Best to all

Robyn

"True healing is a shift in the intent of the disease, not merely its
manifestation" (P.Alexander).