Psoriatic arthiritis is you can say more deeper layer of disease. Meaning the disease is still travelling interiorly. Changing the miasm or changing the intensity of the miasm.
If we understand the intensity of the disease and the miasm, we can treat it but believe me there is no specific remedy for Psoriatic arthirits, book says SULPH but for me the real case picture will guide up the real indicated remedy.
With these approach quiet a few cases have got the positive result.
hi thanks for that client has never got back to me so was unable to proceed with case. as for your use of clinical prescriptions i use a formula myself when treating eczema especially with babies and find it very effective . the way i think about it whatever works , works
Hahnemann is sort of against formulas, actually he got VERY angry whenever people came along calling themselves homeopaths and then using formulas(mixtures of different remedies) selected on disease names.
Agree with Hans 100%!!!!!
People! people! one remedy,the well indicated remedy will work for any ailment/symptoms. One remedy at a time,with follow up consultations this remedy might need a change,might need a different potency,but only when its "indicated" via monotoring these patients. NO COMBINATION REMEDIES WILL CURE ........sorry to burst a bubble here.No shortcuts,no hurry up casetaking."FIRST DO NO HARM"!You can do great harm by "suppressing" symptoms,you might think its palliation,yet doing greater harm to the patient.
I use an Example from my personal family;My first case ever was my own sickly mother with chronic RA(she had it for 20+yrs) Many homeopaths could not fix her.
I dove into this case myself after lenthy years of frustration,she was dying in front of my face,falling apart,her vital force weakly. Allopathy was the first destructive force behind all her misshap 'try this try that' treatments-infact she got more sick from all those allopathic meds,just pure toxins!
Their reply;......"well it palliates that's good enough,we dont have a cure sorry".................
Practicioners of classical Homeopathy should NOT do as allopaths DO. "Palliate" is NOT good enough! Yes there is a cURE! My mother is a true example of this!
This can only happen with proper casetaking,the well indicated remedy and diligent follow ups it may take a year or two but it will happen HOMEOPATHY CURES THE INCURABLES.
Its ridiculous to post "remedy for RA", There are over 3,000 remedies a homeopath needs to look at for ANY PATIENT with any chronic symptom,its not one combination fits all.This is allopathic thinking using homeopathy!
Example for how complicated a casetaking is for an RA patient;
Back to my mother (she wont mind her being mentioned here versus me using a patient as an example) Her Chronic RA (20+ yrs) came from a background of horrid abuse,abandonment,war crimes,captured by the cruel japanese army during WWII,held in a concentration camp for 4yrs,seeing all her family die,malaria,dysentary,boils,torture,rape,starvation.................ok i dont need to post everything you get my point here.
If a homeopath gives a 'COMBINATION REMEDY" nothing happens towards a CURE,only palliation but worse a suppression,causing so much damage to the case,the next homeopath wont know how to untangle this messy case. A great disservice to homeopathy!
more on this subject Hahnemann did NOT use combination remedies;"Hahnemann insisted that only one remedy be given at a time and continually belaboured his allopathic colleagues for their multi-ingredient prescriptions." (Coulter, II, 390) "Then let us...agree to give but one single, simple remedy at a time, for every single disease." (Samuel Hahnemann, Are the Obstacles to Certainty and Simplicity in Practical Medicine Insurmountable? 1797, in Lesser Writings, 320). He rebelled against "the irrationality of complicated systems of diet and regimen, and complex prescriptions," (Dudgeon, xxiv) in common use in his day. In Konigslutter, 1795-9, he "had now abandoned the complicated medication of ordinary medical practice...(and) the absurdity of giving complex mixtures of medicines." (Dudgeon, xxiv) In his preface to his translation of the Edinburgh Dispensatorium, which he translated in 1800, he described the prescriptions in common use as "a confused jumble of unknown drugs—mostly poisons—mixed together." (Dudgeon, xxviii) He "was a most passionate opponent of mixed doses that contained a large number of ingredients." (Gumpert, 96) Hahnemann "was the first to raise his voice against the compounding of prescriptions, holding that the effects of compounds on disease could never be known precisely." (Coulter, II, 335) He condemned the "employment of the many-mixed, this pell-mell administration of several substances at once...these hotchpotch doses." (Samuel Hahnemann, On the Value of the Speculative Systems of Medicine, 1808, in Lesser Writings, 489-90; quote from 498) He was very "outspoken in his contempt for every mixture of medicines," (Haehl, I, 308) revealing his "rejection of compound medicines." (Haehl, I, 308) He objected to “the awkward and often chemically ridiculous polypharmacy,” (Bradford, 453) of his day, and insisted "on the necessity of administering but one medicine at a time." (Dudgeon, 49) He rejected "the absurdity of giving complex mixtures," (Dudgeon, xxiv) of drugs, referring to them as "abominable and nonsensical compounds," (Dudgeon, xxviii) and "a confused jumble of unknown drugs." (Dudgeon, xxviii)
It is better you take the case properly - the beginning of all successful homoeopathic treatment. Location, direction, speed, intensity and periodicity, floowed by concomitants, modalities and time of aggr/amel.
For the rest, Gina and Hans are right and you all better take heed.
"It is folly to use complex means where simple means suffice."
In every case of disease the particulars of the exiting cause of an acute disease are of importance. In chronic cases, the most significant points in the history enable the physician to discover its fundamental cause. Fundamental causes are generally due to a chronic miasma. In these investigations the following points need due consideration:
The character, both moral and intellectual.
Occupation – the work he does.
Environment – the place and situation.
The way of life and habits.
Social and domestic relation.
Age and sex.
(Organon § 5.)
“Diseases are nothing more than alterations in the state of health of the individual, which express themselves by morbid signs.”
(Organon § 19)
“Every agent that acts upon the vitality, every medicine, deranges more or less the vital force and causes a certain alteration in the health of the individual for a shorter or longer period.”
(Organon § 63)
“Every real medicine acts at all times, under all circumstances, on every living being and produces its peculiar symptoms, distinctly perceptible if the dose be large enough.
(Organon § 32)
“Medicinal substances act in the morbid changes they produce according to fixed eternal laws of nature to produce certain reliable disease symptoms, each according to its own peculiar character.”
(Organon § 111)
So if you give a complex, each will have a reaction. That is not a good idea.
“Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the most probable exciting cause. In these investigations the ascertainable physical constitution, mode of living and habitat age and sexual function are to be taken into consideration.”
(Organon § 5)
Kent gives us the following description of the totality of symptoms:
“The ‘totality of symptoms’ means a good deal. It may be considered to be all that is essential to the disease. It is all that is visible and represents the disease in the natural world to the eye, the touch and external understanding of man”
(‘Lectures on the philosophy.’ page 85)
“After removal of all the symptoms of the disease and of the entire collection of the perceptible phenomena there should or could remain anything else besides health.”
(Organon § 8)
“Besides the totality of symptoms, with consideration of the accompanying modalities, nothing can be discovered.”
(Organon § 18)
‘’That the sum of all the symptoms and conditions in each individual case of disease must be the sole indication the sole guide to direct us in the choice of a remedy.”
(Organon § 18)
“If the patient complain of a few violent sufferings, on investigation several other symptoms will be found besides, which furnish a complete picture of the disease.”
(Organon § 151)
“It follows, on the one hand, that medicines only become remedies and capable of annihilating diseases, because the medicinal substance, by exciting certain effects and symptoms removes and abrogates the symptoms already present.
(Organon § 22)
“Neither in the course of nature, nor by the physician’s art, can an existing affection or malady in any one instance be removed by a dissimilar agent, be it ever so strong, but solely by one that is similar in symptoms, according to eternal irrevocable laws of nature.”
(Organon § 48)
The oldest reference to the Law of Similars, which Hahnemann traced back as far as Hippocrates, who derived the idea from the Arab physicians, who in turn took it from Vedic India, is found in the Bhagavat Purana, which was written 5.000 years ago. There it literally says:
“O good soul, does not a thing, when applied therapeutically, cure a disease which was caused by that very same thing?”
“There are but two principal methods of cure: the one based only on accurate observation of nature, on careful experimentation and pure experience, the homoeopathic and a second, which does not do this, the heteropathic or allopathic.”
(Organon § 52)
“A third mode of employing medicines in diseases has been attempted to be created by means of isopathy, as it is called – that is to say, a method of curing a given disease by the same contagious principle that produces it.”
(Organon § 56 footnote)
Hahnemann says that this is not really the same, because it is given in a potentised form, thus having been altered to a similimum.
Hahnemann always stresses the totality of symptoms and in likewise manner proceeds to inform us that the similimum is the only remedy specific to the case before us. He further says:
“The curative power of medicines, therefore, depends on their symptoms, similar to the disease, so that each individual case of disease is most surely, radically rapidly and permanently annihilated and removed only by a medicine capable of producing in the most similar and complete manner the totality of its symptoms.”
(Organon § 27)
Kent elaborates on this in the following manner:
“Then it is not sufficient merely to give the drug itself, regardless of its form. It is not sufficient to give the crude drug, but the plane upon which it is to be given is a question of study. In a proving the crude drug may bring forth a mass of symptoms in one prover, but when a person is sick those symptoms will not be touched by the crude drug.”
(Lectures on the philosophy. Page 93)
“In no case under treatment is it necessary and therefore not permissible to administer to a patient more than one single simple medicinal substance at one time. It is absolutely not allowed in homoeopathy.” (bold emphasis mine)
(Organon § 273)
Hahnemann also says:
“it is wrong to attempt to employ complex means when simple means suffice.”
(Organon § 274)
Complex prescribing is here in the Organon condemned as folly, as not allowed and as plain wrong. One wonders why the call for complex remedies remains so high. The reason being that from complex prescribing nothing can be learned and that therefore the prescriber necessarily must repeat the same thing, because he is unable to know which remedy in the complex did the trick.
Complex prescribing is encouraged for beginners to ‘gain confidence’, but it fails to materialise how this confidence is attained when nothing about the curative agent can evidently be gathered from any one case so treated. If the confidence is meant to mean that one gets the courage to prescribe anything, the complex prescriber can apparently feel safe – it is quite possible that in the complex a remedy is found that will do it. It is also equally possible that another remedy in the complex will antidote the curative process or even be inimical and cause untold problems for the patient and risk for the prescriber. Hence complexes are herewith condemned as confusing, dangerous and unable to learn from.
Kaviraj posted:"Hence complexes are herewith condemned as confusing, dangerous and unable to learn from........................................"
Thanks Kaviraj for your wisewords! .... knowledge of homeopathic principles should NEVER be taken for granted by those practicioners in a hurry to cure.
Breda, I don't understand what you mean by "treating eczema" can you explain. I don't want to assume you are applying something to the skin. I would like to open a discussion of eczema but I think it is being discussed in the Eczema Group.
The reason I ask is Hahnemann said the Psoric miasm is the itch disease(on the skin). Hahnemann said be careful with eruptions on the skin and he explains it very well in his book (small book with the 2 volume Chronic Diseases set) the title is "The Chronic Diseases-Theoretical Part" has many cases about the skin ailments going inward and turning into the internal itch disease. Something else entirely. See pages 49-69.
"Let's not be so quick to abandon science for principle that we turn our backs on what is effective."
Effective in the short term is what allopathy seeks, and this is rarely curative long term, does that not make you think?
"What 'folly' shall befall those that do not tow the line?"
Well, 5 years down the line the patient will get much worse - if you only palliate - just do your follow-ups as thoroughly as Hahnemann and you will notice this very quickly - well, you will need at least a couple of years for that...
There may be people who do not mind this turn of events, but I think this is not something to strive for. Homeopathy is difficult - not in principles, but in practice, - so one has to continuously improve on one's knowledge and understanding and not just settle on "what works" right away - plants and animals - and babies for that matter - do not talk at all, however it is possible to treat them curatively... It might work now - but what will happen to the person 5 years later - aren't you concerned? Not everyone will come back to you, of course, but some will, please, try to observe them and you might notice something that might change the way you think!
To begin with the last, to each their own. How scientific will we be if we take this as our guiding principle? It will never fulfill as a unifying rallying cry.
The quackbusters are looking exactly for this kind of folly.
To each their own means that each can follow his whims.
As you wrote: "If giving the patient temporary relief is considered as haste and 'wrong' then I would rather do the wrong thing in a hurry. :)"
You sound like a thief who says he will steal as soon as the opportunity arrives.
I am of completely contrary disposition. I rather go slowly, since in the race between the hare and the tortoise, the tortoise always wins.
Giving the patient temporary relief is the opposite of what you ought to do:
"The Physician's high and only mission is to cure the sick."
(Organon 1. Hahnemann.)
Where does it say anywhere that we should palliate and then go look for a similimum that can no longer be found, because the complex has already altered everything? The case has already been spoiled.
Now you have in your complex 4 remedies approximately, although many contain many more. But let us be generous and not make it as complicated as complexes do when given as mixtures of upto 12 different remedies.
If you had paid any attention to the article i linked to above, you would have realised your statement would put you and your patient in great peril. You would have to couteract the action of 4 remedies simultaneously or shortly one after the other. This means you have to add more remedies to the already volatile mixture and it must have no inimical relations to any of the others. You see, how immediately you have made a simple thing unnecessarily complicated?
This is neither wise nor intelligent. If you do not use antidotes you have to wait till they have finished their actions before you can try to find back everything that was original to the case and not tainted in any way by the complex - this is another impossibility.
In other words you have not gained anything but only lost valuable time and a simple case to cure. All you have gained is a more complicated case and thus harder to cure. You have violated the first aphorism and carry the title of homoeopath to dishonour. That may sound harsh, but it is the plain truth. Such is not homoeopathy and should not be allowed to pass for it.
For your benefit i shall reiterate that blog post linked above and show you all the instances where complex prescribing only makes the problem more difficult to cure.
Earlier i posted something about separating the chaff from the corn.
I spoke about mixopathy as quackopathy of the worst kind.
You see, i understand their reasoning but it is flawed.
The flaw lies in the misunderstanding of how homoeopathy works. It is an allopathic way of thinking and therefore the misunderstanding arises. They are given in too large doses as well, another allopathic way of thinking and thus it has nothing to do with homoeopathy.
Many closely related remedies antidote each other - not in the bottle, but in their effects.
1. After taking a single remedy, we will develop symptoms of a proving through frequent repetition. The closest similar will often be the antidote, if not complete, then at least partial, as elucidated by Hans Weitbrecht in his piece on Von Boenninghausen's Concordances. Thus much of the effects that are desired, are simply unworkable because of it.
2. The next concerns the fact that you will never know which remedy in the mixture did the work. You are wasting your time with complexes, because it is impossible to discover which parts of the components did the work.
3. The next problem is that they will have to cover up their own ignorance, which cannot thus be removed and repeat the trick time and again. They may seem confident, but that confidence is but superficial and false, as we saw above.
4. Next they have the problem of the effects that have not been antidoted and which did not correspond to the symptoms of the disease against which the mixture was given. There are also the symptoms against which the mixture was not effective, since it was not the closest similimum.
5. Finally, since complete cures can therefore never be accomplished, one leaves parts of the disease and the effects of the complex to fester and cause untold problems in the future. Those develop as a consequence into states and stages where no complex will ever do more than exacerbate the existing problem.
Quintessentially wrong, as we see above.
That is the moment many turn to a real homoeopath, who then needs to first antidote all those symptoms left by complexes, for which there is often no similimum. The solution is not another complex, but a series of remedies in succession, to remove the artificial disease caused by repetitive complex prescribing.
I follow a different path.
This is the quintessence to the real solution of Mixopathy and Complex prescribing.
1. If i want to mix remedies, I do so in the crude and from that mix I produce a single remedy. Then we get an entity that has featues of all the components, but with its own unique character. Much like Causticum and Hepar sulphuris calcarea, which are Hahnemann's. I take my cues from him and his direct disciples and some later homoeopaths that follow him and from none else. He spent 50 years inventing and perfecting this great healing art. He sorted it all out for us.
2. So if we think that for instance we should or could have a universal remedy for scarlet fever, we ought to mix all the tinctures of the remedies that cover it, with the possible exclusion of the inimicals. Fom this mixture of tinctures we make a single remedy which by its very nature as a mix has components of all and its own unique character.
3. Thus we may obtain remedies that cure most if not all of the cases before us. We may also discover they do not. It could truly simplify the practise of homoeopathy and thus help us in better capacity for treatment.
4. We take the relations between remedies as described by Hans Weitbrecht' piece on Von Boeeninghausen and as described by myself in the Sensation thread. Thus we discover the closely related remedies in all species, Families, Orders and Kingdoms, which mixture together in the crude could become enormously important polychrests, as single remedies, in their own right.
5. If we cannot follow such genius as Hahnemann, then we should not pretend to and take the name of his system and declare ourselves homoeopaths. That is simply not honest and i hate dishonesty with a vengeance.
What you need to do is take the case on its totality, find a similar single remedy that covers those symptoms, give it in minimum dose and await the curative results. That is the physician's high and only mission. Yours is deception of both yourself and the patient. That you want to deceive yourself is your good right - "each to his own".
Yet the patient is not "your own".With your self you do as you please.With your patient, you cannot.
So I have no patience with that either. Deceiving themselves and the public, they give homoeopathy a bad name by the use of a lie in the first place. We shall tolerate that? And by it become exactly the same? Nope. Not me.
Anyone mixopath out there who would still abuse the name of our system, now that you know what to do?