--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Little <little (AT) simillimum (DOT) com>

Dear David,

Thank you for giving us such a balanced approach to this issue.
This subject can be so easily misunderstood, your time and sharing of
your knowledge has been much appreciated.

We live in such a complex society, the mingling and merging of
cultures, climates, and genetic heritages truly makes a thorough
knowledge and understanding of homeopathy a necessity even before the
patient has made full use of today's suppressive, hormonal and mood
altering medicines. Who can argue that steroids, hormone therapy and the
psychotropic drugs send people on dead ends in pursuit of symptomatic
relief. We sometimes feel we must have many more options in selecting
treatments for our patients.

Some of my comments are in caps in the body of your letter.


Dear Colleagues,

Homoeopathy is based on the methods found in the Organon, the
Chronic
Diseases, the Lesser Writings and Hahnemann's casebooks. The methodology
in
these works include single remedies, alternations, intercurrent remedies,

sequences and a series of remedies as needed.


I THINK THIS IS WHERE MANY PEOPLE SEEM TO GET CONFUSED AND CALL SOME OF
THESE POLY PHARMACY.

ALTERNATION OF REMEDIES IS NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD, NEITHER ARE SEQUENCES OR
THE REMEDY SERIES.

MOST FRUSTRATING FOR A LOT OF HOMEOPATHS, UNLESS THEY READ YOUR WORK OR
HAVE MADE A THROUGH STUDY OF THE BOOKS YOU MENTIONED ABOVE, THEY DO NOT
UNDERSTAND AND TO THEM THIS IS NOT 'CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHY'.

I AM TREATING A PATIENT THAT IS A TRUE 'MULTIPLE'. AT AN EARLY AGE THIS
PERSON WAS TRAUMATIZED AND ASPECTS OF THE PERSONALITY LITERALLY SPLIT
OFF.

THERE WERE 8 PEOPLE LIVING INSIDE THIS ONE BODY. THIS PERSON IS A HIGH
FUNCTIONING MULTIPLE AND THERE ARE ONLY 4 PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THAT KNOW
OF THIS AFFLICTION.

THE LEAD REMEDY IS NOW BORON 10M (WE MOVED UP SLOWLY OVER A PERIOD OF
YEARS ON THIS REMEDY AND AT THIS TIME THE BORON SEEMS TO HELP THE ENTIRE
PERSON), HOWEVER WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITIES COME OUT, THESE
INDIVIDUAL ENTITIES EACH SEEM TO NEED A REMEDY OF THEIR VERY OWN - SO AT
THE TIME OF THE 'TRAUMA' THAT SPLIT NEEDED ARNICA - OTHER SPLITS HAVE
NEEDED OTHER REMEDIES. POLY PHARMACY? NO CERTAINLY NOT, BUT THE REMEDY
THE PATIENT NEEDED AT THE TIME IS WHAT SEEMS TO CALM AND REBALANCE THIS
PERSON BACK TO A CENTRAL CORE.

I THINK THAT TODAY, WHERE MANY OF US STUDY THE 'ONE REMEDY' CONCEPT FOR A
PATIENT AND WHERE HUNDREDS OF NEW REMEDIES HAVE BEEN PROVEN IN THE VERY
NEAR PAST - SUCH AS THE AVIAN REMEDIES, WE NOW HAVE MANY MORE SNAKES,
WE HAVE COLOR REMEDIES, VACCINATION NOSODES, ETC, ETC . THE SELECTION
PROCESS BOTH BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT AND PERHAPS AT TIMES MUCH MORE
STREAMLINED. PERHAPS WE CAN ELIMINATE SOME OF THESE INTERCURRENTS, SOME
OF THESE ALTERNATIONS OF REMEDIES FOR A GOOD REMEDY THAT CAN BRING THE
PATIENT TO CURE.

HOWEVER, WE CANNOT JUST ELIMINATE A WHOLE PHILOSOPHY OF TREATING THE SICK
BECAUSE WE ARE IN PURSUIT OF ONE REMEDY.

WHAT IF WE CANNOT FIND THAT ONE REMEDY THAT DOES EVERYTHING?

WE MUST BECOME PROFICIENT WITH THE MASTERS WHO DEVELOPED THIS BEAUTIFUL
HEALING THERAPY. WE MUST KNOW HOW TO GENTLY AND ACCURATELY EMPLOY THE
SPECTRUM OF THE REMEDIES WE KNOW AND WE HAVE AND USE THEM FOR THE BENEFIT
OF SUFFERING HUMANITY. AND THAT DOES CERTAINLY INCLUDE INTERCURRENTS,
REMEDY ALTERNATIONS, AND REMEDY SEQUENCES.


IT IS GOOD TO USE ONE REMEDY THAT DOES IT ALL. HOW WE ALL WISH WE COULD
DO THAT CONSISTANTLY ALL OF THE TIME. BUT BETTER TO MAKE FULL USE OF
WHAT WE HAVE AND RELIEVE PAIN AND DISTRESS THAN TO CONSISTANTLY SEARCH
FOR ONE ILLUSIVE REMEDY WHILE OUR PATIENTS CONTINUE TO SUFFER FOR OWN OWN
EGOCENTRIC GRATIFICATION.

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU HAVE DONE FOR HOMEOPATHY IN YOUR STUDIES AND YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH THE HOMEOPATHIC COMMUNITY.

SINCERELY,

MARIA





Hahnemann used acute
remedies, chronic remedies, anti-miasmatic remedies, acute and chronic
intercurrents, and prophylactic remedies. This shows that classical
Homoeopathy is much more than giving one single chronic remedy throughout

the entire treatment.

Nevertheless, a well selected chronic remedy (constitutional remedy)
can act alone for months even years and be repeated in progressively
higher
potencies over a very long period of time. Those that think otherwise are

only using superficial remedies that do not address the inner essential
nature of the disease as represented by the Gestalt of the causes,
miasms,
symptoms and attendant circumstances. The more understanding one has of
the
patient and their disease the less (not more) remedies they will need to
use throughout the treatment. This is part of the maxim of Similia
Minimus.

This said, there are times during chronic treatment that the
circumstances may demand the use of an acute or chronic intercurrent or
changes in the chronic remedies. This is more common in complex chronic
diseases involving divergent causes, complex miasms, dissimilar disease
states and advanced pathology. There are certain cases that present
themselves with advanced organic pathology of vital organs, compromised
organs of elimination, and weakened vitality. Such cases may have to be
treated in layers with a series of remedies over time. Some patients need

to be stabilized before deep action constitutional remedies can be given.

Homoeopathy is first and foremost a system of flexible response that can
be
tailored to suit the causes and symptoms as well as the time and
circumstances.

Hahnemann wrote from early on that there were two major types of
causation. These are individual diseases based that often involves
multiple
causations, and diseases with a single common cause and similar symptoms
that effect a homogeneous group. He noted that the approach to individual

and collective diseases are not identical so he developed the personal
anamnesis as well as the group anamnesis. The personal anamnesis is based

on unique causes, symptoms and circumstances of an individual while the
group anamnesis is used to find group specifics such as the acute and
chronic genus epidemics remedies.

Hahnemann spoke of specific remedies in his Common Source of Materia
Medica in 1817. In this work he pointed out that over the centuries there

are certain remedies that have proven to be specific for certain diseases

of fixed and constant character. He pointed out that Mercury was specific

for syphilis, China for marsh ague, Arnica for the consequence for blows.

falls, etc., and Spongia for goiter found in deep valleys. These
collective
diseases include miasms, traumas, and environmentally educed diseases.
Hahnemann wrote:

"From the circumstances that constant remedies have already been
discovered for those diseases, few through they be, which have a constant

character, one might infer, that for all diseases of a constant
character,
constant (specific) remedies might be found".

On this basis Hahnemann goes on to say that he has found several
specifics:

"And accordingly, since the only trustworthy way, the homoeopathic,
has
been pursued with honesty and zeal, the specific remedies for several of
the other constant diseases have already been discovered."

Hahnemann then goes on to list a number of specifics for certain
diseases.

1. Belladonna in scarlet fever.
2. Aconite (sometimes alternated with coffee) for purpura miliaris.
3. Spongia and Hepar Sulph in croup.
4. Drosera for whooping
5. Thuja for sycosis
6. Merc cor for autumnal dysentery.

This was written in 1817, the time that Hahnemann began his extensive

study of psora. By this time, the Founder had already come to the
conclusion that Thuja was specific for sycosis and Mercury for syphilis.
Krankenjournal DF-22 from 1821 shows that by this time Hahnemann was
noting
the symptoms of psora with NB (Latin note well) and collecting symptoms
that would end up in the list of rubrics of psora in the Chronic
Diseases.
It also shows that Hahnemann was already testing Sulphur as a possible
specific for the affects of psora. At this early date he was already
starting and ending many of his cases with Sulphur and using it as an
chronic intercurrent between other remedies! By this time it was already
his most prescribed remedy. He was to find out, however, that complex
psora
was far too complex to be cured by any single remedy. For this reason, he

began to search for a group of antipsoric remedies by the group case
taking
method. His group study lasted 11 years!

Krankenjournal DF 22 also shows Hahnemann using sequenced
prescriptions
with remedies marked number 1, 2, 3, etc. The grand majority of these
sequences include a large amount of placebos. In chronic diseases the
sequenced remedies were usually changed around every 7 days. In
acute-like
cases the sequenced prescriptions were repeated faster. Boenninghausen
later used a similar method of sequencing remedies in some of his cases.
This can be confirmed by reading the records found in Boenninghausen's
Lesser Writings. Some of his methods are reminiscent of Hahnemann's
earlier
work, which the Founder for the most part left behind during the 1840s
when
writing the 6th Organon.

Contrary to what some think, Hahnemann used more sequenced
prescriptions in 1821 than he did in the Paris cases of 1840 to 1843 when

using the C and LM potency in solution. Actually those who say that
Hahnemann used all sorts of complex prescriptions in Paris in the 1840s
have it totally backwards. The facts show less alternations and no long
sequences in the 1840s like those found in 1821! During his last years he

would occasionally use alternation (as he always had) but there are no 1,

2, 3, 4 sequenced prescriptions. Other than a few alternations the
greatest
majority of all of the prescriptions made between 1840 and 1843 use 1
single remedy at a time. Many prescriptions marked with a 1 and 2
remedies
are the alternation of a medicine with a placebo!

In the 1840s Hahnemann started approximately 2/3 of his chronic cases
with Sulphur. In my opinion this was because he believe that Sulphur was
somewhat specific for the affects of psora, suppression, drugging and
maltreatment at the start of treatment. He also use Thuja against sycosis

and Mercury against syphilis. There were not, however, the only remedies
he
used. So the idea of *specifics* for miasms and certain "constant
diseases"
is a concept that is not outside the realm of traditional Homoeopathy.
Neither are the ideas of single remedies, alternations nor a sequence and

series of medicines over time.

Hahnemann was of the belief that specifics were most applicable in
diseases of common cause and similar symptoms like the miasms which led
to
the acute and chronic genus remedies. It must also be noted that he also
mentioned environmentally induced diseases, endemic nutritional
disorders,
and traumas. These techniques open the door to the idea of specifics for
"constant diseases" in traditional Homoeopathy. These specifics are found

by the method of the group anamnesis were a collective study is
constructed
from the symptoms of many sufferers. Then the collective characteristics
are repertorized and studied in the materia medica.

In Boenninghausen's article, My Treatment of Membranous Croup (Lesser
Writings), the Baron discusses his "croup powders", which were composed
of
3 remedies in sequence; Aconite, Hepar Sulphuris Calcareum, and Spongia
in
the 200C potency. Membranous croup is an old name for diphtheria, a acute

miasm. This sequence of remedies appears to be based the two specifics
for
croup introduced by Hahnemann in 1817 with the addition of Aconite. The
prescriptions is as follows:

1. Aconite 200C

Boenninghausen explains that this remedy suit the inflammatory condition.

He suggests the Aconite be given "few hours" to work and should not be
repeated quickly like every half an hour.

2. Aconite 200C.

The second dose of Aconite should not be given before 2 hours have
elapsed,
and "only if the former symptoms return".

3. Hepar 200C

4. Spongia 200C

Boenninghausen notes that Hepar and Spongia have longer durations than
Aconite so they should be allowed to act for 3 to 5 hours before any more

doses are given. The Baron wrote of this method:

"The exact obedience to these directions has always proved itself
most
perfectly effective, and I can give you my honest assurances that up to
this day I have not had a single case which turned out unfavorably." He
also wrote that if his directions were not followed properly he "declines

all responsibility" for the outcome.

Another facet of this method become clear in the article called The
Use
of High Attenuations (Lesser Writings). In case VI Boenninghausen uses
his
"croup powers" in a case of "quinsy" which threatened the life of the
infant. Boenninghausen's prescription was 1 Aconite 200C, 2 Hepar, 3
Spongia, 4 Hepar. In this case, the patient was cured by a single dose of

Aconite followed by a single dose of Hepar. The rest of the prescription
was NOT taken. The Baron wrote:

"After the second powder the infants was already perfectly cured, and

there was not need to administer 3 and 4."

This shows that Boenninghausen did not give these sequences
mechanically
without assessing the individual reaction to the remedies. In the first
quote he speaks of waiting the right amount of time and not repeating the

second dose of Aconite unless there was a relapse of symptoms. In the
above
case history he stopped giving the remedies as soon as the infant was
better from numbers 1 and 2 and did not administer remedies 3 and 4. This

show the proper use of a specific sequence of remedies for a dangerous
acute miasm.

The idea of specific remedies for "constant diseases" opens the door
for the investigation of traumas, group poisonings, endemic environmental

diseases, endemic nutritional disorders, miasms and other collective
disorders. Could such method be applied to "group hysteria", "mass
psychosis" or "war fever'? What happens when a whole country is
traumatized
or caught up in a frenzy? What about collective archetypes found in
mental
disorders in groups of patients? Can we expanded our understanding of
collective diseases and the group case into these areas also? The idea of

"specifics" is not restricted to one remedy alone as we have seen
Hahnemann
had 48 specifics for psora! There can be groups of specific remedies for
collective disorders so one still must use individualization to find the
personal remedy for a person in the group. This is the meeting point of
the individual and collective!

Can collective specifics also be applied to one sided pathological
states? It seems that when pathology is very advanced, and there are
breakdowns in vital organs and systems the organ, tissue and system
remedies may play a role. At this time remedies that have very strong
regional relationships seem to come forward. Can advanced pathological
states be considered "constant diseases? For example, look at Ceanothus
in
advance pathology of the spleen, etc. I am not suggesting that there is
one
remedy for a each disease state etc. I believe this is a grand over
supplication but can organ, tissue and system relationships to be used to

find remedies in one-sided diseases with heavy pathological of long
standing constant character?

This investigation into the classical methods of Hahnemann show that
individualization and specifics both play a role in classical
Homoeopathy.
So does the use of single remedies, alternations, intercurrents,
sequences
and a series of remedies if necessary. When one looks at this fact one
can
only come to the conclusion that the modern idea of classical Homoeopathy

is much narrower in its scope than what was introduced and practiced by
Hahnemann and the first generation. This shows there is room for all
those
who follow the cardinal principles, including high potency
constitutionalists and mentalists and low potency physically oriented
prescribers. I personally do both as the patient, causes, symptoms and
circumstances dictates.

Now this said, these methods have little in common with the so-called
specifics chosen by disease titles alone nor alternating remedies or
giving
long sequences in advance for weeks and months on end. It also does not
include the use of combinations medicines. In classical Homoeopathy
specifics are used in diseases based on a common cause and similar
symptoms
that affects a homogeneous group. Hahnemann's writings show that they
were
discovered by a historical review of potential specifics and the group
cases based on a collective study of the target disease. The most common
example are the acute and chronic genus remedies used for acute and
chronic
miasms.

Hahnemann does, however, open the door to other collective states like

traumas, endemic nutritional disorders and environmentally induced
diseases
and such method may apply to group poisonings and toxic exposures. The
role
of specifics in advanced pathology is more experimental but organ, tissue

and system remedies have been show useful in one sided
pathology. Experience shows, however, that no one remedy suits all
patients under every condition although one group of specific remedies
may
be indicated more often than other remedies. So with these ideas in mind
let us review all the material with an open mind balanced by an
understanding of the checks and balances built into Homoeopathy that
makes
it a safe and effective system.

Similia Minimus
Sincerely, David Little

Nicely said, Maria!
But I am stuck at your "side-issue"--can you say anything about the
issue of treating "multiples"? Did s/he tell you of the "multiple"
situation, or did you have to work that out? Do you just treat
"whoever" comes to the appointment, or ?
Shannon

On May 3, 2006, at 8:08 AM, MARIA T BOHLE wrote:

>
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Little <little (AT) simillimum (DOT) com>
>
> Dear David,
>
> Thank you for giving us such a balanced approach to this issue.
> This subject can be so easily misunderstood, your time and sharing of
> your knowledge has been much appreciated.
>
> We live in such a complex society, the mingling and merging of
> cultures, climates, and genetic heritages truly makes a thorough
> knowledge and understanding