≡ ▼
ABC Homeopathy Forum

 

The ABC Homeopathy Forum

Totalty-what is not to be included!!

This is an excerpt from Mr.Modi's book, Accurate Homeopathy.

" Let us see what the threatening implications are, when we include unchanged symptoms of the mental nature, thermal state, cravings and aversions and the likes into the prescriptive totality. Let us take the example of cravings and aversions. Generally, in routine cases, cravings and aversions are sorted out and a remedy is given which covers it. According to Aphorism 6, we are presuming that it is a changed symptom. Now, since changed symptoms are diseased symtoms, we are asserting that the patient is ill from birth.

Therfore the patient can be brought to health only when the craving and aversions goes away or modifies. In most of the cases (90% of them) no appreciable difference occurs even after receiving constitutional treatment. So, the conclusion that could be reached is that the patient was diseased, is diseased, will be diseased. Is this not a dangerous conclusion? Generally in most cases, the physical generals do not change from its original position (i.e, start of treatment), but the complaints of patients become better. So, the other dangerous probability is, we are pushing the expression out of sight i.e. suppressing. Since physical generals and mental disposition of the patient, like fear, irritability and weeping hardly alter in most patients. (If we accept that the practice of including unchanged mental and general symtoms in the totality, is correct.)

The last bracketed statement is mine.

5.4 ESSENCE

It can be safely assumed that those symptoms, which show no alteration either in mind or body, should not be taken for prescription. They are health symptoms, and don't merit any attention for prescriptions. In fact to address them as ssymptoms is wrong, they are present even when the patient is healthy.

If the profession thinks that Hannemann had asked us to incorporate mental and physical make up in the 'Totality of Symptoms', we are putting words in Hannemann's mouth.

I couldn't have put it across better. This is exactly, the way I perceive, what is not to be included in totality.

Any comments??

Murthy
 
  bandarbabu2000 on 2005-06-06
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
I think it is very important to emphasise a few things which Hannemann repeatedly stressed in the Organon. We are to take note of the totality of disease symptoms while trying to find the remedy which covers this totality the best. But in doing so we have to pay special attention to the 'strange, rare and peculiar symptoms' in trying to find the similimum. So the mental, emotional or other symptoms which may pertain to cravings or aversions, if they are 'strange, rare and peculiar' enough, they need to be taken into the totality. It is the 'strange, rare and peculiar' qualityu which makes them disease symptoms and helps to draw our attention to the right remedy.

In my modest experience, if the remedy that we choose is the right one, these symptoms reduce in intensity to come with in the normal range. So that they no longer remain 'strange, rare and peculiar.'

With regards.

Rajiv
 
rajivprasad last decade
My feeling is that the totality has to cover the "character" of the individual.
 
keypass last decade
I agree ,we have to give importance to PQRS symptoms. If you read Organon, in a sequential, logical manner, Hahn. says more than once, the symptoms 'altered' are only to be taken into consideration.

That means the symptoms, that have changed after the onset of disease. If his mental makeup changed, and the patient has become more irritable, which often happens in acute problems, do consider it. If the patient starts weeping, while telling her symptoms, do consider it.

If the patient started eating more sweets, or salt, after the onset of disease, then it is definitely a symptom.

But, if a person is chilly, since birth, and he remains chilly ,even after the onset of the disease, this is not a symptom for consideration. The goal of the treatment is to remove the symptoms, and thus make him healthy. This person will remain chilly, even after the other symptoms are removed,if he is chilly since birth.

But, if an otherwise warm person, becomes, chilly, after the onset of a disease, it is a very important symptom.

Now, to talk rather,extremely, take a professional murderer, who is hale and healthy. Can you make him 'normal' by homeopathy?

He definitely have lot of abnormal symptoms as a person.Can you reperterise his case, and make him a sociable, normal individual?

Let us face it.All this talk of treating an individual, has been taken out of context. What is meant by treating a person, but not the disease, is to look for the uncommon symptoms, that particular individual exhibits, while diseased.

A fever may make some people more thirsty, some people less thirsty. Some people will get relief while soaking in the sun, while having fever, and some can't just go near any heat.Some wants to be covered fully, whereas another one wants to throw off the covers.Some sweat on covered parts, where as others sweat on uncovered pats.Some sweat on oneside of the face, and the other will be dry.Some wil be very hot in head, where as their extremities will be cool.Any number of examples can be quoted.

What is to be noted, is each individual reacts to the same stimuli, differently, and each may need a different medicine to suit his altered symptoms, as a result of the stimulus. This is what is meant by treat the individual and not the disease.

An aristrocatic person, maintains his house, car, and everything around him super clean, and can't tolerate any disorder.Give him a single dose of Ars.alb, and ,behold, all his ailments disappear.!!

Will it ever happen?

The whole practice of matching a remedy to the general traits of an individual, was started, as an experiment,in hospitals,where the outpatient department is too crowded to take a proper case.It might have given some good results by chance. It doesn't mean that should become our soul criteria.

I read about stories of homeopathic doctors ,never listening to the complaints, told by the patient, but all the time observing his way of entry, the way he sits, the way he talks, and then disposing him within five minutes, after scribbling a medicine. And about, how succesful they are.

If anybody is really successful this way, he must have certain divine assistance!!.Ordinary mortals can never be successful by prescribing that way.

Enough for now.I will continue, if required.

Murthy
 
bandarbabu2000 last decade
Your continuation is hereby required.

In hospitals, dr's office etc you ave usuallly acute cases or acute phase of the chronic disease. In that case only real symptoms count (Boeninghausen's location/sensation/modalities/concominants).

but what about the chronic ailment. if 2 men develop tumors -without changing their thermals/desires etc-are they the same even though one is always hot and likes sweets while the other is cold and likes salt?


and let's assume the thermals changed but not at the same time the tumor was discovered.
Would that count as a symptom? It takes some time for tumor to develop-and that time differs in different people. So the defense mechanism might have been broken years before. Maybe at birth?
 
Astra2012 last decade
Hi all,

The "altered" symptoms are no doubt important.
You almost always see the patient when he is "having symptoms" or is not healthy, and you have to free him from his acute suffering. So you take all the PQRS symptoms, and ofcourse dont take into consideration his "constitutional features" if they are not altered( like thirst or thermal state or craving aversions etc...). If they are altered, then they form extremely important guiding symptoms for the remedy selection.

Now you give the indicated remedy, and the patient gets cured.

So far its good , because we are considering acute episode or acute outburst of chronic disease.

But what should we do, when patient gets well from such acute symptoms, and then asks you to cure his tendency of the chronic disease? ( for example, chronic cold or chronic indigestion etc...)

At that point, he is free of all the disease symptoms and is apparantly healthy. Now a constitutional remedy comes into picture.

For finding out his constitutional, do we still consider the altered symptoms during disease phase?
No!!
when do we administer constitutional remedy ( ofcourse when he is apparantly healthy, so which symptoms should be considered when the constitutional remedy is selected? )
Do we really need to find out the constitutional remedy?
Or there is no basis/logic for "constitutional treatment"?
can we just go on treating every single acute onset?
Is there no need to strenghthen the constitution of the patient in order to take care of his tendencies?
 
magicure last decade
Please read this also. Those who have read already please excuse me. I thought this is an appropriate place, for this discussion to continue.

The question of the ''Constitutional'' Remedy

By G. Vithoulkas

Published in The British Homoeopathic Journal Vol. 87, July 1998

The question whether a constitutional remedy exists for every individual was raised quite early on in the homeopathic literature by Hahnemann himself when he stated that in order to cure completely and permanently you needed to find the "deeper" indicated remedy according to his theory of the chronic miasms. 1

The meaning of such expression was never clear in the homeopathic sense and before one can talk about a constitutional remedy we should define what we -in homeopathy - really mean with this expression.

Many times in homeopathic gatherings one hears the question "what is your constitutional remedy?" or even worse when somebody asks a supposed expert "what do you think is my constitutional remedy?" Such ideas have degraded homeopathy and have given it an air of magic or superficiality that our science does not deserve.

I will not go in to the different types and descriptions of several authors defining the meaning of this word before or after Hahnemann but I will rather stick to the most practical and applicable meaning of it in everyday practice.

According to such an understanding, a remedy can be defined as constitutional when - by virtue of its symptomatology - it covers the basic chronic or acute symptomatology of the person throughout his life; in spite of the fact that such a person may suffer, in different stages of his life, from different nosological entities like otitis media, lumbago, sciatica, bronchitis, or psoriasis, the indicated remedy remains always the same.

If we accept such a definition as correct then experience, from every day practice, shows the following.

- Those such patients could be found today in almost none of these cases or at very best in very very few cases. These are the very healthy people living up to a very old age with very few problems. Today they are found practically only in rural areas and in the clean climates of the mountains, living a very quite life, away from civilisation and almost never in the crowded cities.

- Such cases could have been met more frequently in older times when people were much healthier in comparison with today's degenerated states of health that we meet in our everyday practice.

- Another point that we have to consider is the fact that according to our theory if a person gets his right remedy-or his constitutional one- then -at least theoretically- he will be cured and therefore automatically change from the type of person he is. The question again remains is there another remedy that could help such a patient or should we expect that with the same remedy we will solve all his future problems?

To suppose that after the constitutional remedy the patient remains well for the rest of his life, again on a theoretical basis, is not correct as everyone is subject to degeneration and death, notwithstanding their excellent level of health. Even worse is if the individual already has a bad state of health by the time he approaches someone for homeopathic treatment.

- We therefore come easily to the conclusion that such a definition has no meaning in deep chronic cases, which we meet today.

What can be said then, in such cases where you need two, three, four or even more remedies before you can say that the patient is really better?

Which will be considered his "constitutional remedy" out of the three, four or five remedies that may have been prescribed during the course of three, four or five years?

What will be the constitutional remedy in such a type of case where four or five remedies have been prescribed, all with some results?

Obviously it is not possible to say with certainty whether one of them was the constitutional remedy.

But if one of those remedies helped the most, can we say that this particular remedy could be called the patient's constitutional remedy? What is the significance of calling it "a constitutional" remedy?

The experienced homeopath knows that these types of cases are actually the most frequent in one's practice.

So to define what we mean by "constitutional" remedy is not an easy task and perhaps a task that is not necessary for successful treatment.

However, the question could be phrased differently:

If one can find a clear-cut remedy to start treatment in a chronic case could such remedy be called constitutional?

The answer to this question is again complex because we encounter the following dilemma.

If after giving the supposedly constitutional remedy we have a relapse, there are various possibilities:

a. If the same remedy is indicated and benefits the patient in the case of a relapse, and if this happens for a third time, may we then say that this is his constitutional remedy?

b. There is a possibility that after a relapse from such a remedy the next remedy needed is different in order to complete or to complement the action of the first so that the improvement will continue even though the first remedy acted well.

In such a case can we say that the first remedy was his constitutional remedy?

c. There is a possibility that a second remedy could be given with some amelioration but the third remedy is the one that appears to really benefit the patient. Can we say that their constitutional remedy was the third one?

d. In today's cases we frequently see that even when a remedy is clearly indicated at the beginning of a case but after giving such a remedy there is no improvement, then his next symptomatology changes dramatically and requires another remedy. In such a case can we say that the first or the second remedy was constitutional?

In conclusion we might say that we can define a constitutional remedy as the main remedy that will benefit the patient most.

But such a statement has no meaning apart from indicating that there is one remedy that is always indicated at a certain stage of pathology for each patient and such remedy should be found and prescribed in order to get the most benefit for the patient.

Experience shows that in every complicated case there is a precise sequence of remedies that should be discovered after studying the case and a correct evaluation of the symptomatology, and such sequence has to be prescribed at the right time and in the right potency before we can affect a cure in today's complicated cases.

The whole explanation of this process is impossible to expound upon here and the basics can be found in my book A New Model for Health and Disease. It is not possible to give all the intricacies of the subject we are talking about in a short treatise.

In the meantime the student of classical homeopathy understands that there are some signs and symptoms that come together in order to form the unique picture of a remedy. Such descriptions usually refer again to the "pure" types or if you like, the "constitutional" types. It is the "essential picture" of the remedy in its psychopathology.

That means that every remedy has some basic characteristic symptoms in its mental emotional and physical pathology and if these characteristics are observed in the patient we tend to say that this is the constitutional remedy of such a patient. From the above it is obvious that we again use this term in a loose manner.

It is also important for us to understand that each person may show a tendency towards certain pathology but may never develop such pathology or we can say that he/she is not sick unless he/she manifests such symptomatology.

Yet the remedy can be detected from his mental-emotional make up plus a few prodromal physical symptoms, which are covered by the remedy. In such a case again we tend to talk about a constitutional remedy.

So a constitutional remedy is one that will actually prevent the pathology from manifesting. For example, the fact that somebody has an inordinate desire for sweets, is tired especially in the morning on waking, has a great thirst for water but drinks it in small quantities frequently, and also has some anxiety coming in the afternoon hours indicates the prescription of Lycopodium in spite of the fact that the actual diabetes mellitus has not yet appeared in the laboratory examinations.

But according to the theories of Hahnemann himself such an individual after ten years may eventually develop different pathology with symptoms indicating Medorrhinum as a second level of pathology, and again the question will arise whether the Lycopodium or the Medorrhinum was his constitutional remedy.

It is obvious therefore from this above short analysis that the meaning of "constitutional" remedy is rather an elusive one or better that it has eluded several generations of homeopaths so far and it is my belief that it will continue to do so in the future.

I will come back little later.

Murthy
 
bandarbabu2000 last decade
This is a really interesting thread. Can't wait for the continuation!

Seems to me that in today's world anyway disease state could well go all the way back to birth and before. What mother and father's own health was like affects fetus as does emotions of the mother during pregnancy. Also exposures such as alcohol, drugs, tobacco, pesticides, during prenatal development.
 
Bodhitshe last decade
&quot; Since physical generals and mental disposition of the patient, like fear, irritability and weeping hardly alter in most patients. "<<< this is confusing personality, with symptomes of disease.
The original personality, isnt a symptome.
If the personality has changed, since the onset of disease, it will , when curing, return back to normal.
The expressions quoted above, seem to be common, in people who lack education in pathology, and the proper use and uderstanding of the repertories and their build up.
Reg "constitutional", this is a not exsisting thing in homeopathy, and can be cleary read about in organon, and all tthe important books.

The only thing thats to be taken into considderation, is whats here and now, and that changes , as soon as a remedie, right or wrong, start to act.
And thats the constitution, folks..
 
allvis last decade
I think a major problem is that when one tends to think of a constitutional remedy as the one remedy that is going to be a cure all for all the diseases that a person is likely to suffer from in a life time. That is apparently a wrong conception. To illustrate, suppose i am a typical Calcarea Carb and it has helped me for a number of years with a number of acute illnesses as well as strengthened my vitality in a chronic i.e. long term sense. That does not mean that if along the line i contract chicken pox, it can cure me of that also. That particular episode would call for symptoms specific to that episode and my mental/emotional symptoms would hardly matter. But one cannot ignore the mental/emotional/general symptoms when it comes to choosing betwee competing remedies in any given case. That is especially more so in the case of a chronic treatment. For example, a patient suffers from effects of suppressed eczema, has obsessive need for order and cleanliness, drinks water frequently in small quantities and is generally chilly. Even though these above mentioned symptoms may not be what are troubling the patient currently, they help us to decide that Arsenic is more likely to be the 'similimum' and not 'Sulphur'. Upon administering Arsenic when the presenting layer clears itself, it may so happen that his obsessive need for control, cleanliness etc. is removed as well as his chilliness. After a few years when he develops some other ailment and he exhibits a number of Sulphur symptoms, we obviously cannot prescribe Arsenic for him based upon the hypothesis that it helped him the last time.

When one starts making mistakes such as above, then it becomes dangerous. I think this obsession with constitutional types with a typically simplified psychopathological profile is an extension of the human need for reducing ambiguity. Homeopaths obviously cannot avoid this tendency. It is only natural and also useful in a number of cases. But it is only a tool just like other tools that a homeopath has. It should be used where it is useful and appropriate. No one can build a reputation for excellence by sticking to one method alone. Homeopathy is too vast and complex a subject for any simplified approach to succeed all the time. One needs to be well versed with all the approaches and employ each one of them where appropriate.

Hanneman always talked of the totality of presenting symptoms with a special emphasis on the PQRS symptoms in order to find the correct remedy. He has never recommended the administering of a constitutional remedy for a particular constitutional type in all of his current and future illnesses. It is the presenting symptoms which should decide the correct remedy rather than any preconceived notions, be they of the animal, mineral and plant kingdoms, periodic table, peculiar sensations, constitutional type and what not. At least this is what appears scientific to me after reading the organon so very carefully. I also think that whenever we have any doubt we should keep going back to Hanneman again and again. That is the surest way of not getting muddled up on our fundamentals.

With humble compliments to one and all.

Rajiv
 
rajivprasad last decade
Good Rajiv

You summed up, it nicely well.

Just, to make sure, I reread the introductory part of Chronic diseases, and also the Organon once again. (May be the 20th time:)).

To my surprise, Hahn, used the word 'constitution' only once, in aphorism no:5 ,and nowhere else.

Throughout his chronic diseases, the explanation of the three miasms, and the method of adminstration, dietery and accessory precautions take precedence, over case taking, and for that he again refers to Organon itself.

Now, read the postulates that deal with case taking. You find all sorts of probable questionings, but none about desires and aversions, as far as food, and diet are concerned. Similarly, no mention of asking any questions about his thermal state in general.

Yes,one definitely has to consider, how a particular symptom is changing with application of heat or cold, by being in a warm room or cold room etc., and he mentions them, but, he never talks about the general thermal state.

What I meant to say, is never depend on general thermal states, to eliminate remedies from your perview.
If you do so, you may be missing the right remedy.

You can use them, if they are really well marked in the patient, perhaps to confirm the remedy, if you have to choose, between 2 or three equally indicated remedies, but never for elimination.

The 'present' picture is what is to be prescribed for.Now, a question is being asked, what do you do, if the 'present' picture is treated,the patient gets relief, but comes back with the same complaint again.
It can happen. As long your remedy choice and method of administration is correct, we can expect a new remedy picture emerge, as the present layer is peeled of, and then you have to prescribe for the new picture.

A patient will never reach a stage, where he has no complaints except his desires, and aversions, and thermals, to guide you.

I will continue. I have a lot more to say, but, meanwhile all ideas are welcome.

We are not trying to stick to one dogmatic opinion or the other, but discussing, in general about the homeopathic philosophy; how it evolved, and how to use it properly to the extant, we understand it.

I, for one, am open for correction, if I have any misconceptions, and would like an open discussion.

Murthy
 
bandarbabu2000 last decade
Dear Mr. Murthy,

I think both of us agree on the broad fundamentals of homeopathy. Now to answer your question and to further clarify a few things that came to my mind after reading your last post.

If upon administering of a certain potency the disease symptoms go away for a while and then come back again then we have to look at the intensity of the symptoms when they come back. If the intensity is less than earlier it means that the remedy as well as the potency was right and one can repeat the remedy. In such a case with each dose the symptoms will become less severe in proportion to the extent to which the inner disease is eliminated. In time we can hope to establish a cure. But if the symptoms do not reduce in intensity, then the potency may have been wrong. Normally one would like to go for a higher potency and see if it works. In some less frequent cases we may even have to adjust the potency downwards. It is again a case of fitting the remedy potency to the individual susceptibility and constitution. Sometimes, we may suspect a miasmatic blockage due to which the remedy is not able to hold for a longer duration. In that case we can use an intercurrent remedy to neutralize the miasm in the background and then the case moves forward. But of course, if during the course of treatment a new layer emerges then you change the remedy to meet the new layer. But here one has to be careful in deciding whether one has really eradicated the previous layer or has muddled up the case with inaccurate prescribing. In this judgement, the knowledge and thorough understanding of Hering's law of cure comes to our aid. For example, if we are treating someone for asthma and a bad eczema which was suppressed twenty years back by allopathy comes to the surface while asthma is ameliorated, we know that our remedy choice was right and the cure is taking place according to Hering's law. Now our task is to find a new remedy which can take care of this eczema.

Another point is that a human being would always have some defining characteristics which make him/her different from others. But this is individuality and not neccessarily a manifestation of disease symptoms. I may prefer icecream over tea and you may prefer tea over milkshake. But this is perfectly fine and doesn't need to be taken into totality of symptoms. But i have an 'inordinate' craving for sweets or for salty things then this is no longer normal as it is a PQRS symptom that deserves to be taken into account while choosing the remedy. For example, my brother a few years back loved sweets so much that he could eat 25 to 30 'Rasgullas' at a time. This was one of the symptoms along with many others which helped me to identify Arg. Nit. as his remedy and it helped him so muchfor more than a year. This craving was also corrected along with many other problems.

Of course, in homeopathy one can never stop learning as it is such a great and vast subject. It is God's own medicine and all those who render treatment on forums such as these and help popularise it are performing a great service to mankind.

With best wishes and salutations to all such noble souls.

Rajiv
 
rajivprasad last decade
Hi all,

When you consider all the PQRS symptoms of "constitution" (as Rajiv has correctly given the example of 'inordinate craving for sweets') while constructing the chronic totality, the remedy chosen automatically strenghthens the constitution of the individual.

PQRS symptoms related to cravings, aversions, thermal state, sleep, dreams, menstruation, perspiration, etc should be considered in constructing any chronic totality (Not for acute diseases like cough or fever, when we consider just the acute PQRS symptoms, and dont take into consideration constitutional PQRS features if they are not altered by acute disease)

When should we administer this remedy which takes into account all the PQRS constitutional features?

Certainly not when patient is in acute episode or in acute exaccerbation of chronic illness... Because at that time he needs a remedy that covers his acute totality.

A constitutional remedy can be administered during a "symptom free" stage.

The effect of the constitutional remedy can be seen on psycho-somatic level: It lessens the frequency and severity of attacks of chronic disease ( eg: asthma or chronic rhinitis etc...)
It also smoothens the 'inordinate' aspects of mental sphere. like 'excessive indolence to work' or 'irresistable desire for cleanliness and orderliness' can be helped by a constitutional remedy.

Now Murthy might ask about the professional murderer. I would say, "Extreme innate desire to kill/hurt others" can be helped by a constitutional remedy. But, 'choosing' to be a professional murderer is a much deeper issue. He might be aware that what he is doing is wrong, but he might not have other option ( it is not his "constitutional feature" to kill others, it could be his necessity to survive/earn) That is ofcourse wrong, but if he is aware of that, our medicines cant help him to leave it for some other noble profession. He himself has to do that.

Now, the question posed in Murthy's first post on this thread:
"Which is the constitutional remedy when 3/4 remedies help in a case"
I think, an individual mostly requires remedies which are closely related to one other. like "complementary" remedies. Because his core is fixed, and all his symptoms keep changing within a limit.
So,remedies like Calc or Lyco often help a Sulphur individual.

Sorry for a long post...
 
magicure last decade
Hi Magicure

I know how much trouble it is to make a long post.:) I must thank you and Rajeev for this illuminatig discussion.

The purpose is to learn, as well as make the information, available for others, who are interested.

I agree basically with both of you, except may be in a few areas, which I will discuss further.

I will come back.

Murthy
 
bandarbabu2000 last decade
Murthy & Rajiv,

Many thanks for discussing these topics and sharing valuable knowledge. It gives me boundless happiness to participate in such discussions with knowledgeable people like you who share the passion for this "God’s Science" (as Rajiv quoted).

I think the thermal state should also be considered, especially if it is a PQRS symptom, even though it is present in a healthy subject from a long time. If we take up a scenario where few people are gathered for a get together of which one person is behaving abnormally by feeling hot. If he is suffocating, wants windows open, wants to be fanned, and whining about how hot it is in an otherwise normal conditions and where other people are feeling just fine, it is a PQRS symptom. If this healthy person develops a chronic disease after a decade and seeks a homeopathic treatment, the thermal state (if he still has it) needs to be considered for the selection of the remedy.

Please feel free to comment on this.
 
Svara last decade
One question, please.
That is; simply this..
Why, do people have the need to use thousands of words, in order to explain, whats only needed two words for doing?

And those words are; here and now!!

Little good do it do , to imagine whats there tomorrow, or imagine this or that, when the fact say, its in front of your nose,its here,its now, look, see, understand.
Thats what Hahnemann told us to do.
 
allvis last decade
Well, I will continue.

In case of Rajiv's brother, obviously, he is not eating so many rasagullas since birth, and he must have got this craving, sometime later.

So, I don't see any problem in including this as a symptom. Moreover, here is a definite change in his cravings for sweets, after the medicine, and that is a good sign.

Suppose you include all the unchanged symptoms, that are there since birth, and give a remedy, and he improves, in his chronic physical complaints, but his thermals, cravings and aversions don't change,(which is generally the case in majority of cases) then what do we have to infer?

That is one of the questions posed by Dr.Modi. Should we consider it as a suppression?

Now, in case of easily identifiable individuals, who are very very uncomfortable, when it is too warm, or too cold, and if they happen to be so since birth,should we include it as a symptom or not?

One inference can be that he is not healthy since birth.You can definitely try to cure him, from this 'abnormality', but, when do you do this?

Vithoulkus has an answer to this question.He gives an example of a person,who has three layers,the top one of belladona, the second one of calcarea, and the bottom one of tuberculinum.

Now, he says, if you give Tubrculinum, when he is in belladona state, it will do more harm than good. You may be able to see the underlying tub. symptoms, even at bell stage, but, he says, don't be in a hurry ,to prescribe tub.First prescribe bell, and wait till there is a new picture, which may reveal, calcarea picture. Now, if you give calcarea, the patient will improve further, and will remain so for a longer time. After some time, the picture changes to Tub, and now, if you give that, he will be in relatively good health, for a long,long time to come.

Now, if a patient is chilly, since birth, the danger of including it, in totality, say immediately, after, the first episode of acute illness, is that he is still not ready for it.

A person, who needs treatment to change his thermals, has to wait perhaps for a few years, and a series of medicines, before an attempt can be made to treat this.

He must be relatively free from all problems,and may be then, you can try to change his physical generals.

So, the best bet, and chances of giving appreciable relief for the patients, is to avoid the unchanged symtoms, atleast for a few years, if he happens to be your regular patient.

The attempt to change his thermals, should be your last try.

I may add onething here.You can always keep his natural tendency at the back of your mind, and check to see ,whether the 'presently' indicated remedy covers his thermal state also. If it does so, well and good. Even, if it is not, don't try to give more value to the thermals, and change the remedy.

To sumup it all, G.V. denounces the practice of giving nosodes, intercurrents, etc..without taking the present picture into consideration, simply based on physical generals.

Please remember, he too advocates physical generals are to be considered. But, he knows when to depend on them.

Murthy
 
bandarbabu2000 last decade
Hi all,

"Suppose you include all the unchanged symptoms, that are there since birth, and give a remedy, and he improves, in his chronic physical complaints, but his thermals, cravings and aversions don't change,(which is generally the case in majority of cases) then what do we have to infer?

That is one of the questions posed by Dr.Modi. Should we consider it as a suppression?"

I have a question regarding Dr Modi's question:-)

WHY would we call it as "suppression"?
If the present complaints get cured with a subsequent deeper affection of organs, then it is suppression. If not, it could be "cure" .

I have seen that the constitutional remedy DOES change thirst, appetite etc ... ( I havent seen change in thermal state yet) These were "unchanged symptoms" or "constitutional features". When these symptoms change, a new drug picture is uncovered, and the patient might need another remedy.

But if they dont change, and the remedy cures the chronic ailment, I dont understand why should we call it "suppression" ?

Murthy has brought another sub-topic for discussion: Whether thermals should be used to select a remedy...
If too outstanding (like extremely chilly), yes, we cant ignore it. If "ambithermal or towards chilly/hot", we cant rule out the remedies that are hot or chilly.

But, if a remedy matches ALL other PQRS symptoms (mental as well as physical) except for thermal state, we can go ahead with that remedy.

I think this differs from case to case, and we always have to choose a remedy that DOES COVER ALL THE PQRS symptoms of the case.We have to judge which symptoms CANT BE LEFT OUT in constructing the totality.
 
magicure last decade
Indeed it is a ver interesting and enlightening discussion going on. I am enjoying every bit of it.

I think a homeopath should approach a given case with an unbiased and open mind. Because that is when he is likely to make the best possible observation and take an excellent case. Even the old man i.e. Hanneman has recommended this. Also one should not be prejudgemental about the layers that lie underneath. It is the presenting layer that deserves first attention. Then the subsequent ones as and when they arise.

Regarding treatment of infants, i will cite a case that i have been treating for almost a year and half now. He is around two years old. He was noticed as developing a very big head and poor balance and eye hand coordination as a result of this. He is a friend's child. They came to me around a year and half back. The kid was sweating on his face even though it was a winter evening.He had an eyebag formed under both his eyes, had a restless sleep, hated warm baths despite the cold weather and hated drinking anything except his mother's milk. The case was pointing towards Apis and i prescribed that. He did very well on Apis and the head shrunk in size, coordination improved as well as his aversion to warm rooms. But by the time he was one year and a few months old, he was behind in physical as well as mental development. His parents were afraid that he might grow into an autistic child. Around this time the presenting picture changed and indicated Calc. carb. which i prescribed. He is on Calcarea for the last six months and has done excellently on it. He has started to grow, the head to body ratio is much better, he started to walk and speak odd words on Calcarea. However, he still sweats on his head upon going to sleep. He is still under treatment.

This is an instructive case in which we see that if we prescribe correctly for the presenting symptoms which may include thermals if they are a part of the PQRS. The thermals too were modified for a six months old child as explained above. But as Mr. Murthy said, it may vary from case to case.

Rajiv
 
rajivprasad last decade
Just other day I was reading an Article Writen by Andre Saine in which he talks about one of calc carb case.

" Question: What signs are you referring to allow you to know that a patient has needed the same remedy since early childhood?

Andr&eacute; Saine: Let’s say you see a patient in his sixties who is new to homeopathy and you find out that some of his symptoms have been present since early childhood or even infancy, for instance, an intense intolerance to milk, aversion to bathing, aggravation from consolation, perspiration of the head in sleep, sensitiveness to draft, etc. You then notice that during treatment with one remedy all these old constitutional symptoms disappear as well as the majority of the other symptoms which had developed during his lifetime. It would be difficult not to conclude that this gentleman needed this remedy since infancy. Let me give you an example from my practice. I once saw a 73-year-old Korean War veteran who was in the last stage of liver cancer. With only a few weeks to live, he was greatly emaciated and his liver was so enlarged that the ribs on his right side appeared dislocated. One liver enzyme was so elevated that it was outside the measurement scale. His complexion had the typical yellow-green tinge of late stage liver disease. He was very weak; just talking would exhaust him. In spite of all these signs of end-stage disease, he had some very characteristic symptoms, such as that he sweated on his head almost every night of his life from the moment he would fall asleep until the moment he would wake up. He also craved eggs since early childhood. What I recall is that the rest of his current and past symptomatology corresponded like a glove to Calcarea carbonica.

Here is a case where you cannot escape saying that this man had required Calcarea carbonica since infancy. Incidentally, he made an incredible recovery under Calcarea carbonica. However, if this man had been treated with Calcarea carbonica in infancy or childhood, no one could say whether he would still have required the same remedy later in his life and whether he would have developed liver cancer. Nobody knows, but what seems evident is that he required the same remedy all his life until treatment was started"
 
vlohia last decade
An interesting discussion.

Brought up for the benefit of one and all.

Murthy
 
gavinimurthy last decade
It was a very enlightening discussion indeed and i am very happy to have contributed to it.

Rajiv
 
rajivprasad last decade

Post ReplyTo post a reply, you must first LOG ON or Register

 

Important
Information given in this forum is given by way of exchange of views only, and those views are not necessarily those of ABC Homeopathy. It is not to be treated as a medical diagnosis or prescription, and should not be used as a substitute for a consultation with a qualified homeopath or physician. It is possible that advice given here may be dangerous, and you should make your own checks that it is safe. If symptoms persist, seek professional medical attention. Bear in mind that even minor symptoms can be a sign of a more serious underlying condition, and a timely diagnosis by your doctor could save your life.