I so appreciated J. Rozencwaig's comments about the ways in which he
finds medical tests to be of use in his practice.

It is such an important issue, and just the tip of an iceberg to a
greater issue, I think. Odd that it should be raised out of the
search for a homeopathic book that would be appropriate for an
allopathic MD to read.

The greater question, of course, has to do with homeopathy and
technology and just what value modern technology might have for the
homeopath and what that technology itself might do to homeopathy
itself. Certainly, with stem cell research especially, we find
ourselves on the cusp of a new form of medicine, something that might
ultimately be neither homeopathic nor allopathic it its impact, but,
instead, something totally new and different. When you learn how to
clone and animal or turn a gene on and off, what form of medicine are
you practicing, and what benefits or harm might you create.

What, then, is appropriate technology for a homeopath to use? I know
some practitioners who still will not use computer software to help
them with their repertorizations, who insist that they need the feel
of their well-worn books in their hands. While others, rush to their
laptops, sometimes even during the interview with the patient.

It is the same with testing. Certainly a simple test might uncover a
hidden factor, like the illustrative damaged liver, but might it not
have been possible to find the same remedy indicated through that
technology through the other means, through observations and
indications in the patient's emotions, mindset, etc? One of the
things that I have always loved about homeopathy is that it
eliminates the need for so much chatter. You don't need to find the
word for the illness, the specific disease diagnosis, you only need
to concentrate on and listen to the patient and give what is
indicated. Sulphur will always work for the patient who is in a
state of similarity to Sulphur, whether or not you have correctly
named the condition that is causing him discomfort. This simple fact
makes the practice less of a game of Jeopardy than is the practice of
allopathy.

But we homeopaths have to keep our eyes on the patient, bear witness
to him and always remember what Hahnemann tells us is the true nature
of disease. That disease festers within the Vital Force, that it is
energy (or, if you will, spiritual) in nature because we are, in
fact, creatures composed of energy, animated and restored to health
by Vital Force. The role of the homeopath, therefore, is to
encourage the balance of Vital Force throughout the body. As
Paracelsus put it, to strike the match to the dry wood and believe
that fire would result in natural order. That fire is the healing
process itself.

In the daily gathering of comments that I found this morning, there
was commentary on the use of medical tests and the use of astrology--
both in the practice of homeopathy. And I find that the homeopathic
"tent," if you will, is big enough to house both. But when I read
discourse on organ remedies versus constitutional remedies, I get a
bit worried. Is there a homeopath in the world who believes that
there exists any remedy (or any other medicine, allopathic or
otherwise) that can be targeted in a manner to impact upon only a
single organ or, for that matter, to perform a single task?
Certainly, some remedies have been shown to have impact within a
smaller sphere of action than do others, but all remedies have the
potential for myriad results. Perhaps this thinking tiptoes a bit to
close to allopathic treatment for my liking.

That is why there is always some risk in giving any medicine of any
form to any patient. We cannot know the full action of that medicine
within that patient's being until it is given. And, once given, it
cannot be ungiven. A decision has been made and an action taken, for
better or worse.

Perhaps this is the role of the medical test, the astrological chart
or any other tool that a practitioner might feel skilled in handling--
to help make sure that that path taken is the safest and wisest
possible. Hahnemann himself, in the opening page of his Organon,
tells the us all--practitioners and patients alike--that the sick are
entitled to a cure that is rapid, gentle and permanent. This, of
course, is presented as the "highest ideal of cure," and it sets the
bar very high indeed. The rest of us have been spending these last
two centuries trying to get it right.

I, for one, will be watching over these next years to see how
technology transforms technology and how it all impacts upon
homeopathy. Already it has given us a simple forum through which we
can sit in our native lands, thousands of miles apart and discuss,
debate and question the appropriate use of what is increasingly seen
as a rather sweet old fashioned form of medicine in an increasingly
complex world.

Oh, one last question and/or thought. A good friend of mine who is a
young naturopath who practices homeopathy and who is a good
generation younger than I am recently said to me that she is finding
that, in our increasingly polluted, complex and climatically warming
planet, she is finding that the homeopathic remedies are not working
very well for her patients. I sat quietly, thinking of how many
times I have heard this sort of thing in recent years from younger
practitioners. The question is this--I direct it especially to those
of you who actually practice homeopathy professionally and have done
so for some years--was my friend telling me the reality of homeopathy
and the world in which we all live (which would indicate that one
day, should the planet get sufficiently polluted and our food
sufficiently stuffed with chemicals that homeopathic remedies will
simply stop working, perhaps because they will be too natural for our
unnatural lives), or was she speaking out of relative inexperience
and, if she were skilled enough to know what a Simillimum is (I grow
frustrated with the continual redefinitions of that word) and how to
find and administer it, the remedy would work as well today as it
would have for Hahnemann himself?

I am most interested to hear some thoughts on this.

--Vinton McCabe
Vmcc (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net

Dogma is dogma! Progress changes dogma into science.
SH gave us the benchmark of homeopathy; it is for us to
progress therefrom.

A remedy could be constitutional, organ specific or one that
addresses an immediate injury (a broken bone). Cure and/or
to alleviate pain is our aim.

To that end we should use whatever technology helps us to
define the problem. Whether it be 'homeopathic' investigation,
blood tests or a MRI scan is of no issue. Once we know the
problem, homeopathic solutions can be employed.

Pollution is complicating all ailments - our homeopathic prescriptions
have to keep pace. Be it repeated doses or combo remedies, we
homeopaths have to face and decide our method of prescribing.

In other words, change and revolutionize to a changing environment.

Jeff Tikari

Original Message -----
From: "Vinton McCabe" <vmcc (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net>
To: <homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:36 PM
Subject: [H] Usefulness of Tests and the Question of Technology


>I so appreciated J. Rozencwaig's comments about the ways in which he
> finds medical tests to be of use in his practice.
>
> It is such an important issue, and just the tip of an iceberg to a
> greater issue, I think. Odd that it should be raised out of the
> search for a homeopathic book that would be appropriate for an
> allopathic MD to read.
>
> The greater question, of course, has to do with homeopathy and
> technology and just what value modern technology might have for the
> homeopath and what that technology itself might do to homeopathy
> itself. Certainly, with stem cell research especially, we find
> ourselves on the cusp of a new form of medicine, something that might
> ultimately be neither homeopathic nor allopathic it its impact, but,
> instead, something totally new and different. When you learn how to
> clone and animal or turn a gene on and off, what form of medicine are
> you practicing, and what benefits or harm might you create.
>
> What, then, is appropriate technology for a homeopath to use? ....
> --Vinton McCabe

Hi Vinton,

This is a very thoughtful contribution, which I appreciate very much.

I just want to add two remarks, concerning your last sentences:

quote
if she were skilled enough to know
> what a Simillimum is (I grow frustrated with the continual
redefinitions of
> that word)"
unquote
What do you mean by "continual" redefinitions?

Simillimum, as Hahnemann used it, means the remedy that is most
similar. Most similar can be very similar, but need not be.

Nowadays it is mostly used to mean a remedy, that is similar enough to
cure the entire complaint or even to cure the patient of all
complaints.

What other definitions are there?


quote

and how to find and administer it, the remedy would work
as well
> today as it would have for Hahnemann himself?°

unquote

In order to get any fundamental understanding of that, one would have
to find out HOW well it worked for Hahnemann.

In order to find out one would have to study Hahnemann's casebooks.

I regret to say that most of the homeopaths who are in a position to
do so presently, i.e. those who can read German and to a degree,
those who can read French, have shown very little interest to do so.

It also seems that the homeopaths who can read English or Spanish
(most homeopaths globally would be able to read one or the other) are
not interested in such study either, or there would be pressure on the
publishing companies to have at least some of the casebooks translated
and published.

Regards

Luise



On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Vinton McCabe wrote:

> I so appreciated J. Rozencwaig's comments about the ways in which he finds
> medical tests to be of use in his practice.
>
> It is such an important issue, and just the tip of an iceberg to a greater
> issue, I think. Odd that it should be raised out of the search for a
> homeopathic book that would be appropriate for an allopathic MD to read.
>
> The greater question, of course, has to do with homeopathy and technology and
> just what value modern technology might have for the homeopath and what that
> technology itself might do to homeopathy itself. Certainly, with stem cell
> research especially, we find ourselves on the cusp of a new form of medicine,
> something that might ultimately be neither homeopathic nor allopathic it its
> impact, but, instead, something totally new and different. When you learn
> how to clone and animal or turn a gene on and off, what form of medicine are
> you practicing, and what benefits or harm might you create.
>
> What, then, is appropriate technology for a homeopath to use? I know some
> practitioners who still will not use computer software to help them with
> their repertorizations, who insist that they need the feel of their well-worn
> books in their hands. While others, rush to their laptops, sometimes even
> during the interview with the patient.
>
> It is the same with testing. Certainly a simple test might uncover a hidden
> factor, like the illustrative damaged liver, but might it not have been
> possible to find the same remedy indicated through that technology through
> the other means, through observations and indications in the patient's
> emotions, mindset, etc? One of the things that I have always loved about
> homeopathy is that it eliminates the need for so much chatter. You don't
> need to find the word for the illness, the specific disease diagnosis, you
> only need to concentrate on and listen to the patient and give what is
> indicated. Sulphur will always work for the patient who is in a state of
> similarity to Sulphur, whether or not you have correctly named the condition
> that is causing him discomfort. This simple fact makes the practice less of
> a game of Jeopardy than is the practice of allopathy.
>
> But we homeopaths have to keep our eyes on the patient, bear witness to him
> and always remember what Hahnemann tells us is the true nature of disease.
> That disease festers within the Vital Force, that it is energy (or, if you
> will, spiritual) in nature because we are, in fact, creatures composed of
> energy, animated and restored to health by Vital Force. The role of the
> homeopath, therefore, is to encourage the balance of Vital Force throughout
> the body. As Paracelsus put it, to strike the match to the dry wood and
> believe that fire would result in natural order. That fire is the healing
> process itself.
>
> In the daily gathering of comments that I found this morning, there was
> commentary on the use of medical tests and the use of astrology--both in the
> practice of homeopathy. And I find that the homeopathic "tent," if you will,
> is big enough to house both. But when I read discourse on organ remedies
> versus constitutional remedies, I get a bit worried. Is there a homeopath in
> the world who believes that there exists any remedy (or any other medicine,
> allopathic or otherwise) that can be targeted in a manner to impact upon only
> a single organ or, for that matter, to perform a single task? Certainly,
> some remedies have been shown to have impact within a smaller sphere of
> action than do others, but all remedies have the potential for myriad
> results. Perhaps this thinking tiptoes a bit to close to allopathic
> treatment for my liking.
>
> That is why there is always some risk in giving any medicine of any form to
> any patient. We cannot know the full action of that medicine within that
> patient's being until it is given. And, once given, it cannot be ungiven. A
> decision has been made and an action taken, for better or worse.
>
> Perhaps this is the role of the medical test, the astrological chart or any
> other tool that a practitioner might feel skilled in handling--to help make
> sure that that path taken is the safest and wisest possible. Hahnemann
> himself, in the opening page of his Organon, tells the us all--practitioners
> and patients alike--that the sick are entitled to a cure that is rapid,
> gentle and permanent. This, of course, is presented as the "highest ideal of
> cure," and it sets the bar very high indeed. The rest of us have been
> spending these last two centuries trying to get it right.
>
> I, for one, will be watching over these next years to see how technology
> transforms technology and how it all impacts upon homeopathy. Already it has
> given us a simple forum through which we can sit in our native lands,
> thousands of miles apart and discuss, debate and question the appropriate use
> of what is increasingly seen as a rather sweet old fashioned form of medicine
> in an increasingly complex world.
>
> Oh, one last question and/or thought. A good friend of mine who is a young
> naturopath who practices homeopathy and who is a good generation younger than
> I am recently said to me that she is finding that, in our increasingly
> polluted, complex and climatically warming planet, she is finding that the
> homeopathic remedies are not working very well for her patients. I sat
> quietly, thinking of how many times I have heard this sort of thing in recent
> years from younger practitioners. The question is this--I direct it
> especially to those of you who actually practice homeopathy professionally
> and have done so for some years--was my friend telling me the reality of
> homeopathy and the world in which we all live (which would indicate that one
> day, should the planet get sufficiently polluted and our food sufficiently
> stuffed with chemicals that homeopathic remedies will simply stop working,
> perhaps because they will be too natural for our unnatural lives), or was she
> speaking out of relative inexperience and, if she were skilled enough to know
> what a Simillimum is (I grow frustrated with the continual redefinitions of
> that word) and how to find and administer it, the remedy would work as well
> today as it would have for Hahnemann himself?
>
> I am most interested to hear some thoughts on this.
>
> --Vinton McCabe
> Vmcc (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net
>

What I am finding in my practice is more and more one-sided diseases or to
use a more up to date term, diseases/states/conditions that are linked to
but independent from the patient as a whole.



Cancer is the best example of course, where it originates within the patient
but cannot be controlled/contained by him anymore.

It is in those situations that I have to deal with the state on the one hand
and the patient as a totality on the other hand; and often I cannot do both
at same time. It is the same, but to a deeper level, than needing Belladonna
for an acute raging fever in a Calc Carb patient.



Therefore I use lots of "non classical" techniques to take care of
independent states before even considering constitutions and miasms; lots of
drainage, detoxification, repair of organs, nutrition, energetic balancing,
etc,......all things that are much helped by tests and knowledge of the
physiology and physiopathology.



Yes indeed there are cases where everything is a Sulphur state or any other
state, but I see them less and less. Mind you, I seem to attract desperate
cases............



My view is that every bit of knowledge you can gather will at some stage be
useful, like gathering screws, nails, nuts and bolts, then many years later
you suddenly find them indispensable to finish that piece of work and you
are sooooooo happy to have kept them (and yes, I have a big box with old
rusty nails, screws and broken parts..........).



When you conclude a case, and see the X Rays and the lab tests back to
normal on top of having a patient healthy, you can start correlating your
treatment with your remedies or techniques you have used; and the same way
we have in our MMs the pictures of different throat inflammations for
different remedies, we might end up with different pneumonia X Rays for
different remedies.........wouldn't that be a nice confirmation of our
remedy selection?



This is not limited to conventional tests or diagnostics. I use TCM tongue
and pulse diagnosis on each and every patient, some general iridology,
sometimes ask my wife who is an extraordinarily skilled reflexologist to
palpate the feet, and she often comes up with a precise diagnosis: one of
those was a patient I successfully treated for psychosis. Had him off all
drugs to the utter surprise of his GP and psychiatrist, this with pure and
simple homeopathy. Then he told me that his only remaining problem that was
not solved was his hypertension of 30 years: one sided disease...........
eventually tracked it down as a beginning renal failure according to
symptoms and signs; upon examination, my wife found his kidney area on the
feet swollen. His GP, who now was less doubtful, agreed to test him.........
first the heart, that was normal as predicted, then the kidney function,
that came back exactly as we said it would.



So my policy has been never to neglect any possible way to understand the
how, why, what, when, where of a patient and to use all possible diagnostic
methods available. To achieve that I am now studying osteopathy; not that I
will adjust or manipulate, but so that I can diagnose correctly and send to
a proper osteopath for this physical, skeletal, technical part of treatment.
And on the opposite end of spectrum, I am a Reiki Master too...........



Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.

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

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



From: Vinton McCabe

Date: 17/02/2007 5:11:54 a.m.

To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com

Subject: [H] Usefulness of Tests and the Question of Technology



I so appreciated J. Rozencwaig's comments about the ways in which he

Finds medical tests to be of use in his practice.



It is such an important issue, and just the tip of an iceberg to a

Greater issue, I think. Odd that it should be raised out of the

Search for a homeopathic book that would be appropriate for an

Allopathic MD to read.



The greater question, of course, has to do with homeopathy and

Technology and just what value modern technology might have for the

Homeopath and what that technology itself might do to homeopathy

Itself. Certainly, with stem cell research especially, we find

Ourselves on the cusp of a new form of medicine, something that might

Ultimately be neither homeopathic nor allopathic it its impact, but,

Instead, something totally new and different. When you learn how to

Clone and animal or turn a gene on and off, what form of medicine are

You practicing, and what benefits or harm might you create.



What, then, is appropriate technology for a homeopath to use? I know

Some practitioners who still will not use computer software to help

Them with their repertorizations, who insist that they need the feel

Of their well-worn books in their hands. While others, rush to their

Laptops, sometimes even during the interview with the patient.



It is the same with testing. Certainly a simple test might uncover a

Hidden factor, like the illustrative damaged liver, but might it not

Have been possible to find the same remedy indicated through that

Technology through the other means, through observations and

Indications in the patient's emotions, mindset, etc? One of the

Things that I have always loved about homeopathy is that it

Eliminates the need for so much chatter. You don't need to find the

Word for the illness, the specific disease diagnosis, you only need

To concentrate on and listen to the patient and give what is

Indicated. Sulphur will always work for the patient who is in a

State of similarity to Sulphur, whether or not you have correctly

Named the condition that is causing him discomfort. This simple fact

Makes the practice less of a game of Jeopardy than is the practice of

Allopathy.



But we homeopaths have to keep our eyes on the patient, bear witness

To him and always remember what Hahnemann tells us is the true nature

Of disease. That disease festers within the Vital Force, that it is

Energy (or, if you will, spiritual) in nature because we are, in

Fact, creatures composed of energy, animated and restored to health

By Vital Force. The role of the homeopath, therefore, is to

Encourage the balance of Vital Force throughout the body. As

Paracelsus put it, to strike the match to the dry wood and believe

That fire would result in natural order. That fire is the healing

Process itself.



In the daily gathering of comments that I found this morning, there

Was commentary on the use of medical tests and the use of astrology--

Both in the practice of homeopathy. And I find that the homeopathic

"tent," if you will, is big enough to house both. But when I read

Discourse on organ remedies versus constitutional remedies, I get a

Bit worried. Is there a homeopath in the world who believes that

There exists any remedy (or any other medicine, allopathic or

Otherwise) that can be targeted in a manner to impact upon only a

Single organ or, for that matter, to perform a single task?

Certainly, some remedies have been shown to have impact within a

Smaller sphere of action than do others, but all remedies have the

Potential for myriad results. Perhaps this thinking tiptoes a bit to

Close to allopathic treatment for my liking.



That is why there is always some risk in giving any medicine of any

Form to any patient. We cannot know the full action of that medicine

Within that patient's being until it is given. And, once given, it

cannot be ungiven. A decision has been made and an action taken, for

better or worse.



Perhaps this is the role of the medical test, the astrological chart

or any other tool that a practitioner might feel skilled in handling--

to help make sure that that path taken is the safest and wisest

possible. Hahnemann himself, in the opening page of his Organon,

tells the us all--practitioners and patients alike--that the sick are

entitled to a cure that is rapid, gentle and permanent. This, of

course, is presented as the "highest ideal of cure," and it sets the

bar very high indeed. The rest of us have been spending these last

two centuries trying to get it right.



I, for one, will be watching over these next years to see how

technology transforms technology and how it all impacts upon

homeopathy. Already it has given us a simple forum through which we

can sit in our native lands, thousands of miles apart and discuss,

debate and question the appropriate use of what is increasingly seen

as a rather sweet old fashioned form of medicine in an increasingly

complex world.



Oh, one last question and/or thought. A good friend of mine who is a

young naturopath who practices homeopathy and who is a good

generation younger than I am recently said to me that she is finding

that, in our increasingly polluted, complex and climatically warming

planet, she is finding that the homeopathic remedies are not working

very well for her patients. I sat quietly, thinking of how many

times I have heard this sort of thing in recent years from younger

practitioners. The question is this--I direct it especially to those

of you who actually practice homeopathy professionally and have done

so for some years--was my friend telling me the reality of homeopathy

and the world in which we all live (which would indicate that one

day, should the planet get sufficiently polluted and our food

sufficiently stuffed with chemicals that homeopathic remedies will

simply stop working, perhaps because they will be too natural for our

unnatural lives), or was she speaking out of relative inexperience

and, if she were skilled enough to know what a Simillimum is (I grow

frustrated with the continual redefinitions of that word) and how to

find and administer it, the remedy would work as well today as it

would have for Hahnemann himself?



I am most interested to hear some thoughts on this.



--Vinton McCabe

Vmcc (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net

I was taught to learn from as many sources as possible and then keep or
discard what resonates with you.

I think it is really helpful to be able to have a range of different methods
of arriving at the correct remedy depending on the patient.

It just adds to treating each case individually.

I am happy to listen to what their G.P, kinesiologist, nutritionist, physic
or reiki master has told them .

We can remain true to homoeopathy while still being open to new methods of
case taking.



Best wishes,

Rochelle .H.