Saturday, March 18, 2017

There is Only one handicap to homeopathy, and this is that it is extremely difficult to master. Recalling my own experience, I can say with certainty that I can hardly remember a day in my life all these years when this really Divine science has not occupied the best part of my thoughts. It was soon that I realized that I was Living only for Homeopathy. I knew that this was the secret for therapeutic effectiveness and even personal gratification. Homeopathy is a Living dynamic science and can be effective only if it becomes a living pulsating knowledge within the mind and heart of the practicing homeopath. -- Prof. George Vithoulkas (Preface of Science Of Homeopathy) #vithoulkas #IACH

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Get Rid Of Universal Syndromes..... - Need Never Rebuild.


Laziness of the practitioner is a universal syndrome in most professions (Homœopaths Are suffering more). Statements like "I am doing well enough; I am satisfied; why make more efforts; why study more?" are all arguments that do not hold up under scrutiny. Why bother to check facts when you can quote a new guru-Homœopath's opinion who charmed your shoes off yesterday? Then there is Arrogance: "I am a great practitioner. I do Better than Most." Indifference is another prevalent emotion: " I can't spend My time investigating what Hahnemann did in his 'senile' years."  may be practitioner is guided by misplaced Egotism: "I want to do my own version of Homœopathy. Homœopathy did not stop with Hahnemann. He would have been proud with my experiments." Yes, it is the duty of every generation to go beyond the last one.
Hering once said: "it is the duty of all of us to go further in the theory and practice homeopathy than Hahnemann has done. we ought to seek truth, which is before us and forsake the errors of the past" 
Homœopathy has evolved considerably in last 150 years. nevertheless, Homœopaths still have much to learn from what Hahnemann taught in his works. I doubt he would be proud if we are shining against and omitting basic laws and rules. I do agree that too much dogma is always counterproductive and that an open mind is an important part of growth. I can hope that we all can progress beyond Hahnemann's knowledge, but we are not arrive there by denying that the organon had anything to do with it. The organon is the text on which Homœopathic healing is based. I never thought it was religious document to be followed blindly, but I do treat it with utmost respect, because without it there would be no Homœopathy. 
Insults from "well-known" Homœopaths such as "religious dogma," "stuck in the past," and "that old dusty bible," are used to undermine the careful observations of several generations of experienced Homœopaths. To "modernize" Homœopathy by ignoring its legacy is like throwing the baby out with bath water. it is like building the proverbial house on a base of sand instead of rock. As soon as the wind of difficulty blow, and the rains of hard times fall, the house will come crashing down. 


Eclectics building upon the uncertain sands of theory need to be continually rebuilding, as each new theory causes a shifting of their foundation. Homœopaths, building upon unchangeable rock of law, Need Never Rebuild. -- Dr. J. T. Kent (Minor Writings)

Thursday, March 9, 2017

GOLDEN ADVICE BY HAHNEMANN


"It ought not to cause astonishment that for such very acute outburst of latent psora the antipsoric remedies are not suitable, therefor, that spirit. vini sulphuratus (or even Graphites, which is such an excellent Homœopathic remedy for erysipelas of the face) was not suitable in the face-erysipelas fever of your wife. These remedies are appropriate for the slow, radical cure of the Causa Prima of the face erysipelas. Now unantipsoric remedies (like Rhus tox. in your case), which correspond to the present transient morbid picture, are the appropriate medicines; they can quickly quell the exciting acute explosion, so that condition calm down again into latent psora, to which these remedies have little or no affinity"
Life and letters of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann ; T. L. Bradford, p.184


Hahnemann clearly separated true acute disease from pseudo-acute disorders caused by flare up of the psoric miasm. They both represents acute like states but a true acute disease is caused by an external exciting cause while pseudo- acute disease is actually crisis produced by the flare up of chronic miasm. Hahnemann suggested stapf administer acute anti psoric remedies for the crisis and then return to the administration of deep acting anti-psoric. Hahnemann suggested the use of  acute intercurrents during severe crisis and chronic anti-psoric treatment for the underlying cause associated with psora. 

Saturday, March 4, 2017

James Kent on Acute & Chronic Remedies


  There are some "classical homoeopaths" who speak against treating acute diseases and always look for the complete "constitutional remedy". It is true that some individuals demonstrate the symptoms of the same remedy in an acute state as in their constitutional condition, but in true crisis, this is not always the case. It is the nature of the constitution, causation and symptomatology that decided the cases management strategy that is needed. Many modern "constitutionalists" consider themselves to be following in the footsteps of the great practitioner, Dr. James Kent. Did Kent only give constitutional remedies? Did he avoid the treatment of acute diseases? Did he mix the acute and chronic symptoms together in one grand totality? Where can we look to find out what Kent really thought on the nature of acute and chronic treatment? In true acute crisis the active layer of symptoms must be used as basis for the prescription of the remedy rather than the suspended chronic symptoms.
  The following quote is from the article called The Examination of the Patient (Continued) from Kent's Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy .
  "It is important to avoid getting confused by two disease images that may exist in the body at the same time. A chronic patient, for instance, may be suffering from an acute disease and the physician on being called may think that it is necessary to take the totality of the symptoms; but if he should do that in an acute disease, mixing both the chronic and acute symptoms together, he will become confused and will not find the right remedy. The group of symptoms that constitutes the image and appearance of the acute miasm must now be prescribed for. The chronic symptoms will not, of course, be present when the acute miasm is running, because the latter suppresses or suspends the chronic symptoms, but the diligent physician, not knowing this is so might wrongly gather together all the symptom that the patient has in a lifetime. "
  When an individual is suffering from a dangerous crisis, a serious accident or emotional trauma, or a virulent acute miasms, the treatment of choice is the acute remedy or acute intercurrent. After the acute state has subsided the underlying fundamental cause must be removed by complementary constitutional treatment to prevent reoccurrence and complete the cure. No remedy is exclusively an "acute remedy" by nature. A remedy becomes acute or chronic depending on the strategy of the homoeopath and how he applies the remedy. Deep acting remedies like Arsenicum, Mercury or Sulphur are often used in acute diseases if the symptoms of the acute layer calls for them. The key in such situations is not to mix the acute and chronic symptoms together in one grand totality as this confuses the case.
  Kent truly followed the teachings of the Organon on the use of acute and chronic remedies. He correctly reminds homoeopaths that when a strong crisis mistunes the vital force it suspends the chronic symptoms while the acute disease runs it course (Refer Org. §38, Layers). Many of our modern constitutional homoeopaths are much like the diligent physician of whom Kent was speaking. They mix all the symptoms of the acute diseases, chronic miasms and innate constitution altogether without paying attention to layers of symptoms. They always search for the 'one constitutional remedy' that treats everything at once. This can be a great mistake in a crisis caused by a strong exacerbation of a chronic miasm, an acute shock or trauma, physical injuries, or a virulent acute miasm. The proper remedy for such conditions are crisis remedies and acute intercurrents.
  The well respected British homeopath, Margaret Tyler, gives a graphic example of a crisis situation in her lecture on the remedy Nat-m in Homeopathic Drug Pictures. She speaks of her experience of treating a chronic Nat-m. patient during an severe acute headache. Dr. Tyler advises against the use of the constitutional remedy at this time because it may produce severe aggravations. She suggest instead the administration of Bryonia, an acute complement of Natrum Mur., to remove the acute symptoms, She then followings up with the chronic remedy to remove the underlying cause. This is advice comes from her years of experience experience in the clinic and should not be ignored. Not everyone is ready for their constitutional remedy the first time they are seen because the acute state is often what brings them to the homeopath.
  Kent echoes Mrs. Tyler advice on acute and chronic states in his Lesser Writings in Class-Room Talks (page 269).
  "Chronic tendency to congestion of the head, when Bell. has been the remedy that gave relief to the acute expression of the diseases, Calc [is complementary]. Now, I don't mean you to understand that during the attack Calc. would be the better remedy. Bell. corresponds more fully to the acute manifestation. Calc. would aggravate to strongly; but after the attack a dose of Calc. will cure the tendency to repeated return of these congestions."
  James Kent and Margaret Tyler truly followed Hahnemann's teachings on the nature of acute and chronic states and their similar remedies. If an acute crisis dominates the symptoms, the remedy of choice must focus on the active symptoms. If one reviews the modern simplified version of "Neo-Kentian Homoeopathy" one finds that it bears little resemblance to what Kent actually practiced. Kent was a Hahnemannian Homoeopath.

Dr. David Little