THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINES

New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 
Coupon SHOPWITHHWC

 

Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

Hahnemann suggested in § 284 Organon (footnote) to treat women during their (first) pregnancy with Sulphur to cure the almost always present psora in order to protect the offsprings. Being the predominant miasm at Hahnmeann's time, it is comprehensable that the indicated remedy should cover the psoric miasm. Moreover, Sulphur may have been often indicated due to prevalent suppression.

Nowadays, some homeopath extend this "eugenic treatment" and apply several nosodes and remedies like Tub, Med, Carc, Sulp etc. routinously during pregnancy with the aim to influence existing or latent hereditary predispositions positively.

Yet, this approach seems to fail the necessary individualization and does not consider that it must be the symptoms alone by which the disease demands and can point to the appropriate medicine for its relief - their totality must be the principal or the only thing whereby the disease can make discernable what remedy it requires.

I would love to hear other homeopath opinion and experience on this subject.

Views: 841

Replies to This Discussion

dear Katja, dear members

Historically we find this footnote only in the sixth edition.

The part concerning eugenic application of sulph is in Haehls handwriting ( see: joseph. A. Schmidt: Textkritische Ausgabe der sechsten Auflage, page 227)on a seperate page stuck to the previous page. This chapter is the only place throughout the Organon where Psora is called a theory.
Haehl (who's handwriting its in) claims this chapter to come from a dictation of Hahnemann. this note is written on the side of this peace of paper stuck to the original manuscript by Haehl. No paper veryfying this claim was ever found in Haehls inheritance, or is known, nor is there any other paper relating contained in what is accessible of Hahnemann's inheritance.

All this makes it highly doubtful to be authentic.

The application of medicines on assumptions of an internal disease is outside of homeopathic rules and principles.
Dear Hans,
thank you very much for your interesting comments !

Greetings from Germany !
Katja
Is this related to sequential homeopathy? If so, I only have anecdotal evidence of it being tried on newborn with eczema and failing miserably.
Victoria
Hi Victoria,
no, its not the same as sequential homeopathy, although both share that the prescription of remedies is not based on the totality of the patient's symptoms. Hence sequential "homeopathy" (a misnomer per se), based on vain assumptions, only can fail...
Thank you Katja! now with this issue behind, it would be interesting to get a "laundry list" of "normal" symptoms of pregnancy and to compare it to what was considered "normal" many years ago - for example now they say that "cold-like" symptoms (could be sycosis) at the beginning of pregnancy is "normal", morning sickness (could be luetic) has been "normal" for along time, swelling of the feet also does not surprise anybody, at the same time by account of great-grandmas it was not so "normal" during their time...
Hi Victoria,

Hahnemann writes that any disturbance of the vital force, i.e. disease , expresses itself by signs and symptoms. The totality of symptoms that result and represent the suffering of the mistuned vital force are one and the same.

To consider any symptoms to be "normal" is rather due to be accustomed to them, but the doctrine of homeopathy enables us to view them in their real context and to cure them. Also, and especially during pregnancy, when the vital force and miasms speak a very clear language.

As for sequential therapy, it adresses supposed blockages merely from an etiological perspective. Major shocks in the patient's history are systematically examined and treated in sequence with "associated" remedies. But even if time and progression of disease are of great importance they must always be seen in connection with the totality of symptoms. All too often these have been "ghost etiologies" which have never lead to any (long-term) effects, i.e. symptoms, because the constitution, which is the major conditioning factor in the experience of suffering, could cope with them effeciently without being affected negatively. Each constitution has its own reactions to stimuli and the same pathogen or traumatic event will affect each person in a different way (or possibly not at all). Neither psychical nor physical inimical forces possess an absolute power to morbidly mistune the human condition.
In following this discussion, I wonder if the term "symptom" needs to be defined. I consider it to mean anything that distinguishes an individual. Thus, a symptom (to me) includes things like a person's taste preferences, even eye color - anything that could be repertorized. That avoids the idea of symptoms being positive or negative. or where we draw the line between characteristics and symptoms. They simply are.

Personally, I have a problem with assuming that anyone "needs" any particular treatment - and that includes homeopathy. Going down that path seems to me to be equivalent to the allopathic approach that has led to vaccinations and giving drugs in anticipation of disease, such as bisphosphonates for osteoporosis that doesn't exist or statins on the presumption that they will prevent heart attacks and strokes. These have all been complete disasters. (Homeoprophylaxis may make sense - but that is, I think, a different issue than presumption of ill health in a pregnant woman.)

So, I have a very basic issue with the idea of treating a pregnant woman with the presumption that she needs it.
Symptoms are the outwardly reflected picture of the mistuned Vital force, and if symptoms are removed (according to the laws and principles of course) the disease ceases to exist.
So they are basically something "abnormal", and to be regarded as a symptom it has to be something that deviates from the state of health.

So lets not confuse what is natural and what is morbid. We have to consider that what represents the morbid constitution or state of the individual and not the constitution per se. Even Kent wrote that it is a bad practice to allow the make up of a patient to suggest a remedy and solved most of his cases by repertorizing characteristic, peculiar and uncommon symptoms !

I think to have a look at the pathogeneses of our remedies helps us to understand what symptoms are and can be. Does or can the color of the eye (iris) change during the proving of a remedy ? If not it will not fall under the scope of what is "curable" with homeopathy.
Hi Katja
Good point -- and I cannot but emphacize on this "abnormality".
Here I want to ask the question: what is normality, - what defines normality?
Is it what we think is normal or is it what the patients normality was in previously healthy times?
the answer clearly is: It is the patients previous healthy normality which is referd to, and which has to be found out about -- thats why we need a bit of history and not only disease history.
Things can get complicated if One assumes, that every individual is psoric or multi miasmatic, because a normality for this individual cannot be ascertained anymore.
but two things help; to go by hahnemanns own observation that psora is acquired and also to know the latent signs of it, -- or to come to the conclusion by experience (like i did), that the whole miasmatic complex is contemporary allopathic thinking and counterproductive to the selection of the now needed remedy.

As i see it: the patient arrives at our doorstep with a rucksack full of problems -- and we have to empty that so that live can become dynamic again.

cheers, hans
Thanks for your always welcome comments, Hans ! Indeed it seems not always to be easy to determine what is "abnormal" and to differentiate between the patients state of health and disease. Anyway, who is born healthy today ???
JUST TO CLARIFY THE TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
"Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution": Logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference, 1921, depicting it as a tree which unites a variety of different fields.[1]

Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." Advocates of eugenics sought to counter what they regarded as dysgenic dynamics within the human gene pool. Specifically, in regard to the continuation of congenital disorders and factors impacting overall societal intelligence relating to the heritability of IQ.

Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, but has largely fallen into disrepute after having become associated with Nazi Germany. Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning ofeugenics and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era.

Thanks for pointing this out Debby !
Just let me add that in homeopathy it's meaning (eugenic treatment) is rather related to the treatment "in utero", i.e. of pregnant woman - at least that was my focus.
I just hate the thought anything of homeopathy could be related with the Nazi regime...

RSS

Search This Site

GET ➤ 
Cancer and Homeopathy
Best Vitamin C Drink
Enter SHOPWITHHWC
for $3 coupon

AGRO HOMEOPATHY

RADIO & VIDEO SHOWS

© 2018   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...