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


Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness


The gray areas mean the practical difficulties in homeotherapeutics where no clear guidance is available; where physician’s own experience and insight comes into play. Many times these are very trying situations where one has to fire in the dark. There is no limit to such occasions; hence the topic will remain open with the invitation for all fraternity to discuss and enrich with their personal problems and their tentative or absolute solutions.

One such problem is when a boil or a furuncle is formed, there are two situations: viz. when it has just appeared and no pus has formed, it is advised to abort it with very high potency of Hepar Sulph. Now our patient is a hot patient. He cannot tolerate heat, drinks very cold water and seeks cold places and fanning. Hepar Sulph is a cold remedy to the superlative degree; where even a small part of the patient’s body if exposed _such as his one hand or foot _ a chill will run down his spine. How and why Hepar Sulph should be prescribed and why will it act in such a patient? Similarly when the furuncle is very slow in ripening, or slow in discharging, same remedy , and also Silicea, are given the first choice. But if the patient is the same as described above, how these intensely cold remedies influence the extra warm patient?

If a very critical patient of a large carbuncle was much ameliorated by one dose of Tarantula Cuban. 200, and the carbuncle starts discharging very profusely with lessening of pain and restlessness, and you have allowed the medicine to work for 10 to 14 days, and the sore improving definitely, but very slowly, should you repeat the dose? Very difficult question!! You will find people, even established authorities repeating doses arbitrarily, every few days, say, 10 days or so. Others, no less authentic, will be wary of any repetition. I myself would be cautious of any repetition and, at the same time cursing myself for not being able to expedite the process of cure.

With the first prescription, few days before menses, in a case of dysmenorrhoea, with missing or scanty menses, of short duration, say one or two days, menses occurred at time, totally painless and ceased after right duration; should we wait for the next cycle without repeating the medicine few days before the expected date, or repeat the dose? Now if we repeat the dose and menses are facilitated, as before, we conclude that the repetition was in order and that it worked well. But if the case was spoiled and all the disease symptoms reappeared; the conclusion would be that the repetition should not have been done. There can be another suspicion that if the repetition was done in a higher potency, we could have avoided the reversal. Who knows!!

In paediatric practice the matter of right potency is a point of difference. Most people prefer low to medium potencies, while there are not few people who believe that the high and the highest potencies should be used. I for myself prefer the first notion. It can be safely supposed that most of the infants and children can be classed as sensitive patients, who should not be given high potencies for fear of over reaction, nor the dose be repeated too often. This is sagacious attitude on the part of the physician; but not a certain rule.

Sometimes a symptoms complex does not lead you to the possible pathology. The symptoms are so banal that the seriousness of the disease is never surmised. Such a case occurred to me of a little boy, of the age of 5 years. He could not retain urine; it was leaking all the time. Homeopathically it was a case of involuntary dribbling, but nothing doing. Pathological and laboratory finding revealed a case of renal malfunctioning and a ‘tag-like hanging or a protrusion’ on the interior wall of U.B. was witnessed. Serum creatinine and urea readings were also exorbitantly high. [Cautery for the ‘tag’ and incision of posterior urethral valve was done in the hospital.]

Many a pathology is asymptomatic. Many times renal calculi and, also, biliary calculi have no symptoms. So is the case many times with renal and pelvic cysts. The answer to this difficulty is, as I have elsewhere said, in making homeopathy, somewhat, pathology and laboratory oriented. The list of asymptomatic pathologies is quite a long one. So the dictum: ‘no symptoms no disease’ stands refuted. Here a Burnett’s mind is required!

Another example is the prostate disease, which is though not asymptomatic but has the same banal symptoms in the beginning, whether the disease is benign or malignant. But the early detection of the latter case can save life in time. A test of acid phos-pha-tase can pre-warn of cancer, in case of its increased ratio in the blood plasma.

A good number of miscarriages happen yearly owing to placental problems, such as detachment, insufficiency and abruption. Countless laps remain barren owing to non-standard handling and treatments of this emergency. An early detection and administration of heparin (Clexane: brand name, an anti-coagulant) in the form of injections can enliven those laps. It is a flawless and sure treatment; but not homeopathic.

The grayest area in homeotherapeutics is the potency selection and the size of the dose. Before going further, let’s lay bare the conventions in this regard. Conventionally a homeopathic prescription consists of a single dose of two globules, of the size of poppy seed, to be administered in chronic diseases; (two to three doses, in rapid succession, in a chronic case, can be counted as one dose); and a solution of two to three such globules in half a tumbler or cup of water, a spoon for a dose, administered for few doses, at set intervals, in an acute case. We can further imagine that a drop of a liquid (alcoholic) potency can moisten, at least, one hundred of such globules. So a drop of medicine can suffice for at least fifty patients. Mind you!!

Now let’s witness the actual practice! Here we find that there are as many versions and ways of administering medicine as there are homeopaths. Every homeopath is a law unto himself. We find people using from mother tincture to the highest potencies; from single dose to multiple doses per day; from single globule to many drops per dose. The erudite discussion on the repetition of a remedy in the same potency and the bad effects thereof (as discussed in Dr. Nagarajan’s blog, in the HWC forum), is quite logical and sensible theoretically, but practically we find people using and prescribing drop doses of the same medicine two to four times a day, for many days, even weeks, from medium to high potencies. More heroic feats cannot be imagined!!!

The rule for dose administration is: ‘Never repeat unless the action of the first dose is exhausted.’ Further ‘Before repeating, re-evaluate the case to determine whether the same medicine is still indicated or a new one is vying to appear.’ This is a classical dispensation, or a golden rule; but seldom practiced. We find many luminaries acting arbitrarily. We feel, seeing them doing so, as if they have some preset goal, and are following it sedulously. Dr. Burnett is a bright example of such cases. He has a beautiful way of his own. One month he prescribes a nosode, a dose every ten days or so; and some relevant organ remedy the next month. Should we follow him? Lovingly, we should; on principle, we should give a second thought…We are rational beings, after all!!!

I put here a full stop to my discussion, but the topic is by no means complete. As I’ve said in the beginning, it is a topic for everyone to bring his/her therapeutic problems and difficulties and relate how those problems were solved_ or not solved_ and how did they managed to go around or surpass them. Therapeutic difficulties in homeopathy are endless, where a physician experiences pricks of conscience. The solutions are, evidently, peculiar to his seeping and experience. Anyway you are invited to bring your difficulties for the people of HWC to discuss.

DR. USMANI Nov. 25, 2009

Usmani Resource Page

Copyright 2011/All rights reserved © Dr Usmani
Contact author for permission to use

Views: 219


You need to be a member of Homeopathy World Community to add comments!

Join Homeopathy World Community

Comment by Dr. Sarfaraz Ahmed on December 3, 2009 at 11:22am
Dear Dr Usmani
First of all thanks for the greetings. Hope you had a Happy eid.
Your article is very interesting and raises sime important questions. There is one agreement about the potency and the dose by all homeopaths in the world------that there is no agreement!
Iwill try present my views later.
Comment by Hans Weitbrecht on November 30, 2009 at 5:26am
Hi Debby
Well put --. the rules and principles contained in the organon form the platform on which homeopathy can be used savely. they are not a roadmap neccessarily, as not all rules are used in every case. As long as we know, that by leaving this platform we leave the security zone, and enter uncharted territory, the choice is up to us.
there are ways to treat even in situations where patients are on medications, and i go there if neccessary, but they are not HOMEOPATHY. they are MIXOPATHY.
We may discuss those methods seperately and exchange our experiences there.
Comment by Debby Bruck on November 29, 2009 at 4:31pm
Hans ~ I agree that if you have a solution to a problem, it is best to use that method. I only implied that 'trial and error' were the basis for finding those solutions. If you have a map and know the road, then use it. And, The Organon is that road map. Today, we may be in different territory and may need some new alternative solutions. How to work around people who take daily drugs, poor diet, etc.?
Comment by Hans Weitbrecht on November 29, 2009 at 3:18pm
Dear Heidi

Even though this point would deserve a separate discussion I will briefly outline my view.
You wrote:

>>If one must go back to the same perfect base over and over without question, then, to my thinking, that qualifies the subject as more religious than anything else.

It would not be without questions, that One goes back to the Organon, or maybe goes there for the first time?
Because if One knows homeopathy, knows the principles and rules, then there is no need to return to the basics, as one knows them by heart.
They come alive once practiced and every cured case is confirmation of them.
I rarely return to the Organon, only more for teaching/discussion purposes.

Religiosity is by definition not created by repeatedly returning to an instrumental work of any kind. Religiosity is defined by a belief in a supreme entity that can be prayed (begged) to for favors and has superhuman qualities.

>> We throw around the term, scientific method, without understanding that there isn't any single method.

I am no part of this “we”, maybe you replace it with I, -- as it reflects your knowledge about Scientificness, not mine.
I have gone beyond your views, and if you wish, I can point you the direction where to find out about the most modern terms of scientifficness.
Comment by Heidi Stevenson on November 29, 2009 at 12:27pm
If one must go back to the same perfect base over and over without question, then, to my thinking, that qualifies the subject as more religious than anything else.

There is no single scientific method or process. It's a philosophy of enquiry, one that says we can always question. A hypothesis is given as something that's testable and, therefore, can be proven wrong. It is not an assumption of truth. Though I admit that many deal with it in that manner, it's a subversion of scientific inquiry. The real beauty in science, when it's practiced in a pure sense, is that even the most basic of assumptions, if demonstrated to be untrue, can be revised. It has happened many times, and most likely will again.

We throw around the term, scientific method, without understanding that there isn't any single method. There are many, and they're used according to what best fits the circumstances. All methods have advantages and disadvantages. The double blind approach works in some cases - but in most scientific endeavors, it has absolutely no value. Epidemiological approaches are effective to a point - but only when applied in certain instances and done very carefully. There are other methods.

I think that we homeopaths need to insist that we keep homeopathy open to inquiry, but that only those methodologies that are appropriate for a particular question be used. We need, also, to understand that allopathic doctors are absolutely not trained as scientists, though most seem to have the hubris to think they are. But, neither are most of us.

If homeopathy wants to be considered a science, then even the most basic assumptions must be open to question.
Comment by Hans Weitbrecht on November 29, 2009 at 10:36am
Dear Members

In homeopathy, we are very lucky, that we can return to common grounds, to the rules and principles, which define it.
We can return to a save way of dealing with diseases, selecting a remedy and a save way to apply it, so that the result is curative. (quick, gentle, permanent)
What more does anyone wish for?

We can go to bed without worries, -- could I do that without being able to take a person with disease, just as she /he is? Could I do that using a mode of selection which is not reliable, use remedies which are not proven trustworthy, without a form of application, which I can adapt as close as possible to the individual case?

With a C-potency, it’s almost impossible to make adjustments, -- if an individual overreacts, or if there is not enough impact.

And Debby, there are many roads from here to ROME, but there is only one which is the shortest (direct line). Would I be forgiven to send the patient on a tour all around the country, which finally brings him to Rome after a long time, if I know the direct road?

>> Part of the problem with The Scientific Method today is when a hypothesis is written there is already an answer in mind. Then the scientist goes about trying to prove his hypothesis and consciously or subconsciously may manipulate the data or the test to MAKE the answer fit his theory. This is when the conclusion becomes suspect.

IMO: This is a method long overcome by true scientists.
Already Descardes and later Kant showed, that information gained from above method is neither rational nor mathematical.
Above is the method of the old school.

Is there finality – One may ask – all in this world is impermanence – such is human existence.

Study of homeopathy is not religion, if one goes out and practices and sees for oneself, what more convincing could there be?.
Even if it is a return to the very rules and principles – homeopathy is not a belief system, it is more so the application of modern scientific principles to medicine.
Comment by Debby Bruck on November 29, 2009 at 9:29am
Could we imagine that there are more roads to the end point? Is it possible that there is not just 'one answer' to every case? Could it be the dynamism of the patient and the physician? Could bringing together two entities have the curative effect?

As in all relationships, we see with two sets of eyes. There is give and take, provider and receiver of information. Each human comes with a history, experience, knowledge and more.

Perhaps 'truth' is believing that we can find a solution together? Knowing that G-d provides at every moment what is needed in each situation, we move forward. Part of that may be realizing we do not have all the answers, and thus, we need help from others. We utilize the tools we have used in the past that have been effective until something new and better comes along.

Learning the methods of others means that we can be open to change and refinement. If, on the other hand, every time we try a new method and find that it does not result in improvement, then we can put it aside or creatively use it in another application. I believe 'trial and error' has moved humanity forward in her search for answers and is one form of science.

Part of the problem with The Scientific Method today is when a hypothesis is written there is already an answer in mind. Then the scientist goes about trying to prove his hypothesis and consciously or subconsciously may manipulate the data or the test to MAKE the answer fit his theory. This is when the conclusion becomes suspect.

As many have stated, it may be possible that due to the nature of healing, there may be required two or more standards of observation. The double-blind study may work for a completely mechanistic view of life where certain factors are a play. And another form of inquiry and observation is needed to conclude when a 'dynamic' and ever-changing relationship is being studied.

In a way, science today is the religion that believes there is only one-way, with one answer, one view-point and it is grounded in the material world without allowing the interplay of immaterial spirit and life-force into the equation.

Homeopathy and a number of other healing practices allows for this 'unknowable' entity into the equation, which enables the possibility of 'more than one way' and 'more than one answer' to every puzzle.

just rambling on here...
Comment by Heidi Stevenson on November 29, 2009 at 8:52am
Dr. Usmani wrote:

"Enquiry is not sacrilege, nor questioning a sin; nor any person has ever uttered the final word in any discipline of knowledge."

Brilliant words. If we should think that we have the Truth, then we're headed for a fall. We have only what we understand at this point. If we cannot continue in the spirit of inquiry, then homeopathy is a religion. If study means only going back to a single book for The Truth, then homeopathy is a religion. I did not become a religious practitioner. I'm a homeopath, with the ability to think and question - and the obligation to do so.
Comment by Hans Weitbrecht on November 29, 2009 at 7:00am
Dear Members, dear Dr. Usmani

I have clear answers to most of your points of concern.

However, time and space does not allow me to elaborate in greater detail.

If there is enough interest, I may offer a post graduate course, addressing those questions.

To follow your wish, here are few hints from the Organon and the CD.

C-potencies: CD introduction of Volume: 5 (liquid application)

>> it is advised to abort it with very high potency of Hepar Sulph.
Such advice is not found in the Organon.

– However you may consult first:
Case taking: Organon par.: 83 – 103
Then selection of appropriate remedy: Organon: par.: 148 – 246
Application of the selected remedy: Organon paragraph 247 – 286

Btw.: The rubric carbuncle in Boenninghausen’s: TT suggests 90 remedies, of which I am sure, you will be able to select One suitable for the case at hand.

Repetition of the dose:

A lot of uncertainty remains when using C-potencies, some expressed in this article.
I am almost exclusively using Q-potencies. Repetition org.: 247
Also not to forget 246.

Hope this encourages further study.
Comment by Dr. M. A. Usmani on November 29, 2009 at 4:18am
Comment by Hans Weitbrecht 1 day ago
Delete Comment Dear Members

Gray areas of homeotherapeutics = gray areas of your knowledge?

One may see it in that light – then those who feel there are above gray areas have to go back to the drawing board, the Organon to speak.
There you find the answers to those uncertainties.

First know homeopathy, then teach others. – if teachers would follow that rule, all those questions would be answered long ago.

Dear Members,

Dr. Hans Weitbrecht commented on my blog. I’m very grateful to him for showing my weakness. I’m a learner, not a teacher, and I want to remain as such. Knowledge never lets me to put a full stop to my query.

What I’ve said in my blog: ‘Gray Area…..’ was in the spirit of discussion, with the invitation to all members to contribute. Enquiry is not sacrilege, nor questioning a sin; nor any person has ever uttered the final word in any discipline of knowledge.

It is simple to suppose: had Hahnemann’s sojourn in this world been extended for more ten years, there would have been a seventh or eighth or ninth or so, version of the Organon. And whatever would have been the last version, our Professor would have made it his scripture, (against the spirit of the Founder).

In the 6th edition of the Organon the Master rejected (broke) his tenet of giving only one dose, and not repeating. Though under the plausible garb of LM potency.

The great disciple of Hahnemann, Boenninghauten broke the rule by giving two medicines at a time: the indicated remedy, the first day, interpolating it with the antimiasmatic or constitutional or the complementary remedy the second day, and repeating the first remedy the third day.

The Organon is the magnum opus of Hahnemann, and a guide and a reference book for the homeopaths; but with open mind and logical reasoning, keeping it mated with the new discoveries of science.

Istead of saying what Mr. Hans has said about my blog, he should have applied his energies to finding solution for the difficulties there enumerated. May be he would have mentioned the relevant paragraphs from the Organon to enlighten us.

Dr. Sahani’s attitude is what could be expected from a sympathetic, mature and dedicated person. He says:
Dear Dr.Usmani, You have raised very crucial aspect. Today I discussed this subject with Homoeopaths of our place. Here we are meeting every thursday to share views. I will keep updated in this discussion.

Dr. Usmani

HWC Partners


© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...