Tag Archive for homeopathy. Hahnemann

Scientists say homeopathy is undiluted hogwash. But it CAN work – and that’s all that matters

15 March, 2013 Mainstream Attacks on homoeopathy, Practitioner Comment

Scientists say homeopathy is undiluted hogwash. But it CAN work – and that’s all that matters

By James Delingpole
UPDATED: 10:52, 1 March 2011

 

Believers: Some homeopathists argue that water is capable of retaining some form of 'memory'Believers: Some homeopathists argue that water is capable of retaining some form of ‘memory’

Just what is it that makes so many people so angry about homeopathy? I’ve been using it on and off for years — arnica tablets for when the kids fall over, a magic box of special remedies which helped cure my hay-fever. I’ve always thought it was something harmless, something all of us did now and again.

Apparently not, though. In the past few months, whenever I’ve mentioned my guilty homeopathy secret to friends, it’s as if I’ve confessed to a penchant for child sacrifice.

‘What?’ the general reaction has been. ‘Don’t you realise all homeopaths are charlatans; their remedies are nothing more than sugar pills; they’re a drain on the NHS; they’ve resulted in the deaths of gullible innocents all over the world?’

This surprises and saddens me, for there have been times in my life when I’ve found homeopathy beneficial. I wouldn’t class myself as an ardent believer — I won’t shun coffee or mint toothpaste, or any of those other boring things you’re supposed to do if your remedies are to work properly. But I’m not a virulent sceptic, either.

Probably the greatest success I’ve had has been with my hayfever. It made my childhood summers a misery of itchy eyes, sneezing and almost flu-like debilitation.

Yet by my mid-30s it had all but vanished thanks to a wonderful little Welsh firm called Ffynnonwen (which makes a special homeopathic anti-hayfever kit) and to the miracle worker who sent me there, a homeopath called Fiona Gross.

Fiona was just an ordinary London housewife who got into the business quite by accident when her daughter broke out in terrible eczema which conventional medicine couldn’t cure. After much reading, research and experimentation, Fiona did cure it, and decided thereafter to make a career of her new-found expertise.

One of her recent success stories was a woman struck down with a mysterious  respiratory illness acquired on holiday in Greece.

Using her Sherlock Holmes-like skills, Fiona eventually narrowed it down to the pollen of olive blossom. She sent some olive blossom to Ffynnonwen, which made up a remedial homeopathic tincture. Within a few days, the woman’s problems had gone.

Almost as interesting as Fiona’s cure was the reaction of the woman’s GP: he was livid.

Though he’d failed to cure the problem himself, he refused to accept that homeopathy could have done the trick. Clearly, her illness had been all in the mind.

Of course, I understand why the medical establishment is sceptical. As campaigners such as science journalist Ben Goldacre tirelessly remind us, homeopathic remedies are so dilute that they’re unlikely to contain any pharmacologically active molecules.

Success story: The greatest success James Delingpole had with homeopathy has been with his hayfeverSuccess story: The greatest success James Delingpole had with homeopathy has been with his hayfever

And I’m well aware that in countless tests, homeopathic remedies have been shown to be no more effective than sugar pills. In other words, its power may lie purely in the placebo effect.

Perhaps they’re right. Certainly, almost everything I’ve read on homeopathy convinces me it’s bunk. That’s why, every time I take a homeopathic remedy, I mutter to myself: ‘You don’t really believe in this nonsense, do you?’

And why, though I use homeopathy for routine ailments, I very much doubt I’d rely on it, say, as a prophylactic against malaria or as a miracle cure for cancer. Well, not except as a last resort — which is how most people come to homeopathy anyway.

Where I seriously find myself in disagreement with the anti-homeopathy lobby, though, is over the shrillness of their bullying intolerance.

They pride themselves on their rationalism, yet the foaming fury with which they pursue this modern heresy owes more to the religious fervour of Witchfinders General or Spanish inquisitors.

There’s often something insufferably smug about their attitude, too: ‘See how clever and rational I am! I know my science, I do. That’s why I hate homeopathy! I am a real sceptic, me.’

Well, yes, I too am all for the principles of post-Enlightenment rationalism. But surely one of those principles is a healthy awareness that none of us yet knows everything there is to know about everything. The history of scientific progress, after all, is the history of old ‘consensus’ theories being discredited and being replaced by new theories.

Until the 1880s, the experts would have laughed in your face if you’d suggested that malaria was caused by anything other than the miasma of foul air that emanated from swamps.

Until the Seventies, you’d have been ridiculed for positing that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium; until 1934, nobody even suspected that the major part of the universe might comprise something called ‘dark matter’.

Does that mean that everyone was totally thick then, and that we have all the answers now? One day, perhaps, scientists will prove beyond all doubt that homeopathy is hocus pocus nonsense. But there are other possibilities, too.

The principle of homeopathy is that a remedy can be as dilute as Goldacre points out because the water retains the memory of the active ingredient; it doesn’t need lots of the remedy to work. This has been scoffed out of court by the sceptics.

However, Dr Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the Aids virus, and Nobel Prize-winning Cambridge physicist Brian Josephson both argue that water is capable of retaining some form of ‘memory’.

Josephson accuses homeopathy’s critics of ‘pathological disbelief’ — that is, they hold the unscientific view that ‘even if it were true, I still wouldn’t believe in it’.

‘The practitioners I’ve known have been sincere, thoughtful people who give their clients the kind of attention you’d almost certainly never get from a GP these days’

Not being a scientist, I’m keeping an open mind. What I’m wholeheartedly against are the anti-homeopathy brigade and their attempts to destroy this harmless cottage industry through expensive over-regulation.

I find their complaints about homeopathy on the NHS overdone (just £4 million out of the NHS’s annual £104 billion budget goes on homeopathy: that’s a mere 0.004 per cent).

Nor am I persuaded by their line that homeopathy is denying genuinely sick people proper medical treatment.

No one is forcing cancer sufferers to use pulsatilla extract rather than radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Almost everyone who uses homeopathy does so out of informed choice, rather than ignorance — often after they’ve been through all the conventional remedies and found them not to work.

And if we’re going to come down hard on ‘sugar pills’, what about all the cases where the pharmaceutical industry’s licensed drugs have done far greater damage — such as the teenage suicides linked to the antidepressant Seroxat, or the increased risk of heart disease caused by the diabetes drug Avandia?

That’s why I’m laying my neck on the line and sticking up for homeopathy. Not because I know for certain it’s true, but because I’ve met too many people whom it has helped not to give it the benefit of the doubt.

The practitioners I’ve known have been sincere, thoughtful people who give their clients the kind of attention you’d almost certainly never get from a GP these days.

Homeopathy has helped many thousands of people feel healthier and happier than they were before, fairly inexpensively and without any unpleasant side-effects.

Call them gullible fools, call them what you will: the point, surely, is that it worked for them — and that’s all that really matters.

One comment , ,

As it is.

2 February, 2013 Admin Comment, Historical, News, Sensation Method

blind_leading_blindSo, from the pages of this blog, you can see all the wonderful stuff going on the world of conventional medicine. You will never hear, “we are sorry” or”We dont know what we are doing”. No, you will just see deception, and lies and self promotion. I am sickened in spirit reading of the deliberate choices made by pharmacies for profit, in the knowledge that the medicines they release into the marketplace (sic) are not good for cure.

And what about Homoeopathy? Does the therapy offer better choices for healthcare?

Sadly for Homoeopathy, the therapy is being reduced to a worthless and ineffective form of treatment, that is of no use to anyone. For the most part, and mainly in the Western world, the tenets and usage of homoeopathy is so far removed from how it should be practiced, that I am surprised when a person gets benefit from treatment at all.

The modern gurus of homoeopathy, have propounded theories,with their own fanciful spiritual leanings and incorporated into the framework of teaching, so much so that Hahnemannian homeopathy, the Therapy, no longer is taught. It is virtually impossible to pass any college exam without knowing the practice methodology of Sankaran and Scholten.

This, in itself, and by itself, has removed any vestige or usefulness of the medical practice. Homoeopathy proper, is not known to the advocates of the methods. People seeking urgent medical aid will need to go elsewhere for treatment. Sankaran has turned a medical practice into a quasi psychological evaluation based on supposition and speculative theories, that are not even very good models to use in any therapy. It has complicated a very sound scientific principle with defined parameters into a search for something that cannot be observed clinically, and is totally dependent upon the practitioners own spiritual belief, comprehension ability, emotional involvement, and speculative diagnosis. No two Sankaran practitioners would come to the same conclusion for a prescription in general.

Homoeopathy was designed to match observable symptoms of disease. The search for the ‘inner’ cause, was addressed by Hahnemann in great detail throughout his writings, and is the very first thing mentioned in his Organon of Medicine.

§ 1
The physician’s high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed. 1

1 His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant – whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.

 Im sure that for those that practice in the manner described above, exception and issue will be taken with these comments. Sadly for them, and for the patients they see, confirmation of Hahnemanns words are evident in the paucity of cures effected. Practitioners of the Sankaran method are NOT effective in treating medical problems of either an acute or deeper illness conditions. There comes a time when success has to be measured by a majority of cured cases in your clinic, not the occasional ‘amazing’ cure, no.. it has to be the coughs colds, traumas, fevers etc etc that leave the clinic with a curative response in evidence. It has to be done QUICKLY both in the evaluation of the disease symptoms and the choice of prescription based on sound reasoning and reality. This is real world medicine, as practiced by Hahnemann and others and there is NO room for anything but sound medical training and analysis. Anything other is Quackery.

Without strict adherence to the methodology of the application of the medicines, Homoeopathy cannot and will not stand up to scrutiny in the public arena. It fails every time simply because the people practicing under the banner of homoeopathy, are misleading themselves and the public. I have watched the decline of the reputation and of the therapy of homoeopathy in the last few years with a sense of acceptance simply because the therapy cannot and will not survive in the absence of clear principles, and in the presence of so much erroneous teaching.

Much of the homoeopathic literature written in modern times, is less than useful. Most of the prominent names in homoeopathy today, have nothing of value or use to offer to the therapy. Whilst enriching themselves, for cult status has its benefits, the progress of homoeopathy proper has been stunted, if not destroyed. Can the blame for the present state of the therapy be placed solely at their feet? No. It takes supporters to elevate an individual to guru like status. People who are too invested in hearing what they want to hear, listening to things that satisfy their spiritual leanings, and who are too indolent to open the writings of Hahnemann and check whether or not the teachers are teaching truth.

How many times has P & W heard from a person giving up the practice of homoeopathy because its is “too difficult”. One person who practiced Sankaranism, recently told Vladimir Polony that she was quitting because she was not getting any results.. he commented that perhaps her methodology was at fault to which he was told ” Oh No! the methodology is fine.. it must be me!” It has reached the point where if success is not achieved by following a fallacious protocol… its the practitioners fault because they must have done something wrong!  Now that is good brainwashing.

The Hahnemann Institute in Sydney, and the P & W Institute have independently studied myriads of original documents in various Institutions from around the world who hold them. It has involved P & W staff traversing the USA from Library to Library, Medical faculties and Museums. The Hahnemann Institute staff has traveled thousands of miles from Australia to Europe in their search for original literature. All this to ascertain truth and certainty as to what Homoeopathy really is and how to practice the therapy as devised by Samuel Hahnemann. Out of this research, has come very clear and precise knowledge with comprehension of WHY homoeopathy (the therapy) has to be practiced in a certain way to achieve success.  If the proper methodology is employed in case taking and case analysis, and adherence to the protocols of giving the medicines, then indeed, the therapy of homoeopathy could replace at least 70% of therapeutic treatments in mainstream medicine today.

The modern homoeopathic self appointed leaders, dont know that they dont know, and furthermore, they dont really care to know. They could know, if they bothered to read the literature. However, that would cramp their style, their status, and their income producing ability. It is better to reach out to peoples emotional and spiritual nature to encourage the belief that medicine can be practiced by anyone on non medical grounds and by a form of interpretive analysis…. sorry people, it doesnt work like that. As a physician, you would last only 5 minutes if you didnt produce results.

I would urge each person in practice, or in training, or indeed contemplating a career in homoeopathic medicine, to just READ the Organon of medicine (Dudgeons edition) without the overlay or interpretation of anyone. Do NOT read it as a Bible. Read it as a medical text book without a spiritual tone. Read it with the knowledge that it is a man searching for a better medical practice based on pathology and understanding of a disease process and how to use more defined signs and symptoms to elicit the problem and effect a cure using medicines.

I have no hopes for the therapy in the West. Governments seemed determined to stamp out all practices that are at odds with allopathy. Sadly homoeopathy cannot put up a defence scientifically as it is practiced today. Sadly, Sankaran et al, have destroyed homoeopathy as a useful mainstream therapy for this generation. It is down to individuals who have taken the time time to study and learn what the real practice is, that will be of localised usefulness to their patients. Sankaran and Scholten et al will merely shake their heads and lament its passing claiming that they enriched the world with their brilliance and comprehension of disease and treatment thereof, and be content.

History will record the story of the demise of the most effective therapy in the world, as being diluted to uselessness for the sake of greed and ego.

It could be solved so easily just by reading the literature. But then, Most people dont let the facts stand in the way of their prejudices.

No comments , , , , ,

Symptoms and using the Repertory.

7 December, 2012 Boenninghausen, case-taking, Cases, Public

Firstly, this brief overview is not for people of the Sankaran or Scholten school of thought. This website is solely for the real practitioners of homoeopathic medicine as defined by Samuel Hahnemann and enlarged upon over his lifetime in his writings. The repertorial work here is based on the 125 remedies contained within the 1846 edition of the Therapeutic Pocket Book, authored by Boenninghausen and approved by Hahnemann. The methodology can be adapted to use with any Repertory, however the accuracy of the Repertory you choose must be checked against the Materia Medica, For the honest and accurately observing practitioner, this will exclude most, if not ALL modern Repertories due to the inherent, uncorrected and false entries placed within its pages. More is not always better where health is concerned.

It is not within the scope of this article to discuss the merits or pitfalls of only having 125 medicines to work with. Suffice it to say that for those that use the Therapeutic Pocket Book, it is a very rare occasion that a case necessitates the use of a medicine outside of its contained medicines for evaluation.

It is also not in the remit of these brief notes to explain the Organon directives for case taking. For those wishing to discuss the whole methodology, we offer training courses over one or two days in the UK for groups of 10 or more.

Case example:

16 year old female, not yet started regular menses. Had intermittent flow of an hours duration perhaps 3 times in 2 years, presented in the clinic with a cough. No obvious causation. Spontaneous cough, would come and go. Patient was under stress with high volume schoolwork.

Patient came home from school yesterday after a concert. Mother observed child was glassy eyed, irritable, and mild redness of throat. Gave a dose of Belladonna. No change. I was consulted later that evening via SKYPE for advice.

SX presented. Cough.  Bitter taste. A white coated tongue. Irritable mood. Cough increased when lying down. The patient reported in passing that she had a brown vaginal discharge for the last 2 weeks.

These are Symptoms. What is the importance of each?

Cough. as a symptom, complete rubric,  in the T.P.B. has 121 medicines listed.

Bitter taste has 123 medicines listed.

Aggravated from lying down has 124 medicines listed.

Irritability has 62 medicines listed.

Tongue coated has 85 medicines listed.

If you look at each of the rubrics individually, and then collectively, it does not help. At least not on the information collected from observation, and from the patient. Its pretty useless as far as a prescribing case goes. Its a Cough. The modalities do not differentiate enough to choose a medicine. There are 50 remedies in the Materia Medica that cover the case.

Now Hahnemann in the Organon:

§ 6 Fifth Edition
“The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.”

He writes clearly that the true picture of the disease is the observation of the signs and symptoms that have CHANGED. He did not say, that the signs and symptoms of the know pathology of a process, he said that the perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.

So this means, that a composite picture of a DISEASE STATE, might include symptoms that are present, and appear to have no relationship with a known disorder.

As an observer of disorder, it is important to look at situations and symptoms EXACTLY as they are. I saw that the symptom, of recent origin, that prevailed, was a discharge, brown in colour from the vagina. Can I ignore it? Not really. This is a young girl who has not yet established her natural cycle, and thus her hormonal regulation is not fully functioning. It is a symptom, an expression of her body that is observable. It is fairly recent. On top of that, she now has developed a cough.

It is not for me to speculate regarding hormonal interaction, or indeed IF the discharge is related to the cough. It is for me to note that a clear alteration to her normal state is present. I HAVE to take it into account.

In adding this concomitant Symptom to the disease picture, The Therapeutic pocket book pointed me to one remedy that covered all the symptoms of the case.

This combination of expressed symptoms, albeit, apparently, not related to each other in allopathic terms, would be the totality of the disease.

One dose of 0/1 was administered to the coughing patient, and immediately, with 30 seconds, the coughing ceased. The patient was able to lie down and go to sleep. In the morning the patient awoke, had a mild cough, and was given another dose of the Nitric Acid upon which all coughing ceased. The patient was instructed to repeat the dose in the evening. All irritability is gone and the patient feels a lot more rested and like her old self.

Having used the SYNOPSIS and the T.P.B exclusively for a few years, and having a knowledge how the system works, in my analysis of this case, I only looked at the SX of leucorrhea brown. It has 2 medicines. I knew that Ammonium Muriaticum did not have a coated tongue in its symptom production. As stated, the other symptoms are general symptoms of a cough. Repertorization took no more than 70 seconds including a brief check in the Materia Medica.

For those of us that practice medicine the Hahnemannian way, these cases do not involve hours of questioning. The entire episode took no more than 10 minutes. Chronic cases in the main take only 40 -60 minutes if the directions of Hahnemann are followed accurately.

Unfortunately, the profession of Homoeopathy, in the Western world no longer exists in the schools and colleges, due to the establishment of guru like worship of self professed leaders. Time will prove them incorrect. Sadly for those seeking treatment, the chances of getting proper professional homoeopathic help are receding by the day.

G. W.

 

 

2 comments , , ,

Treating Genital Herpes.

30 November, 2012 Admin Comment, case-taking, Cases, Repertory, Special Offer

For a homoeopathic physician, this is a fairly routine complaint that will come up in a busy clinic. The disease is so endemic in the western world that, Im surprised when a month goes by and I havent seen a case.

Firstly, I want to address the disease process, or miasms as Hahnemann called them, and put them in perspective using his model which follows the modern approach to disease in use today. Hahnemann classified disease and/or infection into 3 named divisions. There is Psora, containing a host of disorders, and then there is Sycosis and Syphilis, acquired and formed by venereal infection. So in Hahnemanns model, Sycosis and Syphilis are the entire disorders of a venereal nature. All other disorders are not, ie Psora.

This simplistic explanation, not taking into account mixed miasms etc, is the basis of my approach to dealing with patient ailments when faced with any acquired STD. I treat the infection totally for what it is and bear in mind that it is a singular disease of a venereal infection, and thus has to be isolated in terms of other symptoms and dealt with within the confines of an STD. I try not to confuse the symptoms of an STD with any others, but ALWAYS take into consideration a totality of the presenting problem.

Here is an example out of my clinic.

Female patient in 40s. Had been under treatment for various health issues for which Lycopodium had proven its worth over a 18 month period, exceptionally so.

I was contacted recently that a recurrence of genital herpes was in evidence. The herpes was contracted in her early twenties and had been treated with Valtrex about 10 years ago and there had been no outbreaks of herpes since. In looking at the case and noting that the patient had suffered on and off with respiratory disorders and lots of influenza and not feeling well, which Lycopodium cleared up very quickly and effectively, I surmised that her body had been treated effectively through the existing layers of ill health, and now, the herpes virus was the top most layer, perhaps even the causation (or the suppression of the herpes) of her poor immune response to influenza and recent ailments.

How do you treat herpes? What can realistically be done to prevent re infection and outbreaks? First, and logically, there cannot be any suppression of the expression or of the symptoms. It has to be treated homoeopathically, to support the body and organism to clear itself of the virus. It is not going to happen overnight, and it not going to happen in one outbreak. However it will happen, and it can be eradicated if treated correctly.

First, a physician has to note the symptoms of the expression carefully, VERY carefully.

This was the case as presented to me.

Sx began with a sensation of dryness, with heat in the Labia
small white sores, like pimples on the clitoris.
Swelling of the clitoris and labia.
 Sores grew larger over 3 days, like blisters, irritating/itching. Worse for scratching, itched more.
Red ‘cuts’ appeared on 3rd day on perineum, no blistering. Urination causes stinging on them.
A discharge started on the 4th day, milky white.
All symptoms are worse for moisture. Used blow dryer on cool, after shower, to dry the area completely.
There is a sensation of pins and needles in the genital area.
So this is the case. I examined the symptoms and looked for what is common in Herpes Genitalis, and what symptoms the patient was expressing that individualised her disease state.
As a physician, it cannot be stressed enough that knowledge of the Materia Medica is important. ACCURATE knowledge, and for this reason I highly recommend the works of Samuel Hahnemann, especially the “Chronic diseases” and the ‘Materia Medica Pura”.
In my practice, I use solely the SYNOPSIS P & W therapeutic pocket book edition of the guide to the materia medica by Boenninghausen. This masterpiece is based on the original provings of the Materia Medica and is arranged in such a way that if the choice of rubrics are correct, then, the suggested remedies to review are also the closest match possible.
Firstly, you will notice that I have not taken into account, ANY other symptoms other than the symptoms of the presenting disorder.
§ 6 Fifth Edition
The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.
As this was the sole picture of her deviation from health, it is from within these symptoms that I looked for her remedy similarity.
The most striking thing for me, was the necessity to have the area dry. Completely clear of all moisture, even her own natural moisture.
(click on pictures to enlarge)
In looking at the repertory, There is this rubric,
and whilst it covers the main symptom, I felt that the need to dry off completely, needed exploring. I was informed that the itching and uncomfortable feeling was also worse in morning, and needed washing, which made me suspect her own lubrication was aggravating the condition.
Because of this, I took the rubric:
Which, because I know each of the 5 remedies in it very well, I was already in possession of the knowledge that one of them was the correct one. I just didnt know which one yet.
So looking further..I took the other symptoms in the case to examine in detail.
It was then a matter of sitting down and reading the essential development and symptoms of both medicines to see which to prescribe.
I rarely use more than 3 rubrics, to either make a complete symptom or… I use 3 symptoms in rubrics for a case. For example, in this case I actually only considered 2 rubrics, (but filled it out for an example). The two rubrics I used were:
As you can see, no other remedies had these 2 present. On that basis, I could go ahead and choose the remedy.
In reading the remedies, I chose Sepia for prescribing. The patient only had sepia 200c available, I usually go with 50 millesimal potencies, but had her make the remedy up into a liquid and take one dose a day. Within 2 days the itching and need for continual washing clean had diminished, and I fully expect the flare up to resolve within the week. I will keep the patient on Sepia even when the symptoms have gone, and evaluate further at that time.
Homoeopathy is a medical treatment. That is why accurate knowledge is important, and why our profession is being diluted by the advent of the sensation method and poor training. It is only by homoeopaths returning to the tried and tested methods as used by Hahnemann, will we stand a chance of regaining credence in the eyes of the world.
The SYNOPSIS program with 17 repertories and 300 Materia Medicas and texts is available on special offer from gary@homeopathyonline.org with a $100 dollar discount until December 24th 2012.
2 comments , , , , ,

Fast acting acute cough

2 November, 2012 case-taking, Cases

 

Fast acting acute cough

Patient, 50 year old woman developed cough as tickle in throat two days ago. Cough was non productive and sound like from irritation in throat.

I did not prescribe.

Cough became worse when exerting self, stooping and lifting anything.

I did not prescribe.

Patient worked at home and was coughing on lifting, exerting, moving. Felt very hot.

I did not prescribe.

I saw patient 60 minutes ago. Was lying down. Felt chilly internally. had coughed so much, had vomited mucous. As long as laid down still there were no symptoms.  started to cough as talked to me.

I prescribed Bryonia 0/1 in water to be taken every 10 minutes.

Patient is now sleeping.

Expect a full recovery in next 24 hours.

G.W.

Polony and Weaver.

 

No comments , , ,

A case of chronic cough

29 October, 2012 case-taking, Cases

Another case from an I.H.M. graduate practitioner. Vera Resnick Based in Jerusalem.

A patient came to see me several years ago with a chronic cough.   The patient was a 75 year old man, himself a doctor.  He had had a cough for two years.  He’d been to every doctor, had been examined with every diagnostic test for a variety of conditions.  The latest diagnosis was reflux and he had been taking gastro medication, but the cough persisted.

I prescribed Causticum and after a mild aggravation in a different system, the cough disappeared and the patient was restored to health – although he was embarrassed to tell his colleagues that he had resorted to alternative medicine.

However, two years ago he was back.  The cough had returned, although the symptoms were not as severe as previously.  The doctors had come to the same conclusion after ruling everything else out – they declared that the patient was suffering from reflux, and prescribed gastro medication, which was not helping.

The cough was dry and paroxysmal, starting with a tickle in the throat.  The patient also reported a sensation of dryness in the hard palate on waking, relieved by drinking water.

I asked what had happened prior to the renewed onset of the cough.  The patient reported that he had fainted while working.  The doctors were not certain of the cause, and had prescribed statins (his cholesterol was normal), medication to lower his blood pressure (his blood pressure was generally low), and a blood thinner.  The cough had started shortly after starting these medications.  The patient had stopped taking the medications a couple of months before this appointment, and the cough had eased during that time but would still not go.

The patient reported aggravation from dry foods and he thought there might be a tendency to cough in stressful situations.  In addition, he said that since his fainting episode, he had difficulty exhaling, and did poorly when exhalation was tested.

I took the following symptoms and reached the repertorization in the screenshot below:

 

Reading Nux-V, I found my patient described well in the proving.  Staphysagria also looked good, and the patient also reported that he had had problems with teeth all his life.  However, his teeth were not the issue, and Staph did not cover the aggravation from dry foods.  Phos-Ac also looked like a good match for the patient, who had reported great weakness after the fainting episode.  However, he was not weak  now.  We talked a little more, and he said “I get really impatient when things don’t go how I want them to.”

I prescribed Nux-V which caused curative action.

 

 

 


No comments , , ,

Modern gurus part 1

14 August, 2012 Admin Comment, case-taking, Historical, Practitioner Comment, Public

Misha Norland – the provings from somewhere over the rainbow

How is it possible that so many attacks have been made on homeopathy in the last couple of years ? The answer is very simple. Modern homeopathic gurus have successfully removed any trace of the empirical method and any trace of science and present their own rationalistic transcendental theories.

Let’s start with provings. Modern provings, do not comply with the Hahnemann protocol anymore. The authors and conductors  of modern provings proudly clam that they are conducted according to Jeremy Sherr’s, Paul Herscu’s. Kent’s or someone else’s proving protocol and methodology.

Indeed, it seems to be very fashionable to use the methods and approaches as defined by modern gurus. This fashionable approach holds more appeal than strictly scientific double blind trial methods used by modern medicine.

If these new methods are indeed better, the information from new provings should be even more reliable than ever before. Why is it then, that Roger Van Zandvoort, the author of the biggest homeopathic repertory, took it upon himself to remove 130,000 modern additions from the 2009 version of his repertory? This was almost one quarter of his newer source material. In doing so, not surprisingly, the repertory became more accurate in usage. (http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-repertory/complete-repertory-2009/).

Modern repertories are often criticized as containing too many new remedies and some repertories even went as far as creating “classic” versions that disregard all new materials altogether. If the new provings were accurate there would be no need for this.

Misha Norland is the Founder and Principal of The School of Homeopathy, Devon, England. Despite the fact that his proving methods are very unconventional and despite the fact that the conclusions he draws from the results of the provings are even more controversial than the methodology, his school has conducted about 25 provings, which are now included in most of the modern repertories.

One of the early clues that make it clear that the reader should be very cautious before using the results of these “provings” is the stellar company of Patrons of the school – Jan Scholten, Rajan Sankaran, Frans Vermeulen, Jeremy Sherr, Miranda Castro and Massimo Mangialavori. It comes as no surprise that the methodologies used by this school and by Misha Norland are far from Hahnemannian.

Proving of AIDS nosode

Before even starting to talk about whether this proving is Hahnemannian or not, let’s quote the introductory comments:

“The procedures for conducting a proving were laid out by Hahnemann in § 105-145 of the Organon and on the whole there has been little need to change them. They have been commented on and clarified by:

1 JT Kent Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy Lecture XXVIII
2 Jeremy Sherr Dynamics and Methodology of Provings
3 Paul Herscu Provings.”

Clearly, the methodology of Hahnemann was not strictly followed, but REPLACED by methodology of Jeremy Sherr, Paul Herscu and J.T. Kent.

The section The group proving gives us even more unsettling overview of the methodology:

“…There appears to be a teletherapeutic effect produced by the field generated by the assembled provers, their experiences being in resonance. The whole group is involved and those members who have not taken the remedy may be as affected as those that have.

This means that the use of control provers who are given placebo is not possible as they are also likely to prove the remedy. Because of the group’s field effect It also means there is no need to repeat the dose if symptoms do not occur immediately…”

So, in other words, the observation is, that regardless of whether the person is taking placebo or remedy, their symptoms will be the symptoms of the remedy.

How is this possible? A clue might be gained by the section The Proving:

“This stimulus, perhaps because it is amplified by the many co-experiencers, and is ‘reawakened’ at monthly gatherings when experiences are recounted, is sufficient to produce long range effects.”

It I understand it correctly, provers actually exchange experiences about the remedy on a monthly basis. It is therefore clear that this “ teletherapeutic field” that mysteriously effects the group is simply interaction between provers. The desire to succeed and to be special is one of basic human traits. If other provers hear someone talking about interesting transcendental experiences, you can bet that they will start experiencing something similar. Mind is a mysterious thing and if you rely on dreams and mental images to give you the true meaning of an experience (things so easily influenced by wanting to experience something special), your experiences will be shaped by your interactions with other provers and by a wanting to experience something special.

Interestingly, the proving starts with everyone talking about mental images and impression immediately after taking the remedy. So, if one of the provers knows the remedy (and some of them do, since in some of the proving even the conductors of the provings take the remedy), this will set the tone of the proving and reveal whatever “essence” the conductors of the proving want to reveal.

This could also throw some light on another statement from the section The Proving:

“ Results, of the initial provings, though portraying some symptom pattern, did not convey the ‘shape’ of the remedy. Therefore, I sent some pillules to Mariette Honig in Holland who carried out a similarly exhaustive, yet, ultimately unilluminating, proving… However, the picture of the nosode emerged with flying colours when in 1994 we carried out two group provings amongst students at The School of Homoeopathy…”

Well this is now easy to understand. Is it possible, that the initial provings followed a more strict protocol and the provers were not influenced by experiences of other provers, so the results were “unilluminating”? Is it also possible that once we get a group of provers that is influenced by the gatherings, the symptoms will be more transcendental and more uniform? The symptoms will be closer to the symptoms that the conductors of the proving want to see rather than the real symptoms.

How else could we explain the phenomena that people taking placebo experience the same symptoms as people taking the remedy? It has not been observed in clinical trials and the control group taking placebo is used effectively to disregard symptoms that are not caused by the remedy but are caused by environmental effects.

We have two different experiences.

Experiences from properly conducted clinical trials that repeatedly show that people taking placebo do not develop the symptoms of the remedy.

And we have “provings” following a different “method” which allows free exchange of impressions on meetings, where some of the provers know the remedy and where usually the proving does not include a control group taking placebo.

Both of these methods yield different results and while the results of the clinical trials follow scientific protocol, and their results can be rationally explained, the proving method of Misha Norland must introduce the phenomena of “teletherapeutic fields” and “telepathy” and other mysterious phenomena affecting other provers to explain the similarity of experience, when the answer is quite simple. If a group of people can have a free interaction and sharing of mental and dream experiences, it is conceivable that vagueness of these phenomena can be interpreted as having a similarity on a certain level. It is also conceivable that if there is a sharing of experiences, people will consciously or sub-consciously have a desire to experience something interesting leading to similar experiences, dreams, etc.

Proving of the Dream Potency

Some of the problems with this proving are that the original potentized substance are unknown.

A bigger problem however is, that out of a fairly small group of 15 provers only one was taking placebo. Out of 15 provers 10 were women, so it is not surprising that a common experience of the provers was, that they felt feminine. 

Proving of Salix Fragilis

Once again, the proving group is incredibly small and unbalanced. Out of 7 people, there is only 1 person taking placebo and interestingly enough, the person taking the placebo is the only man in the group. Yes, all the provers were women.

The worst problem is though that this starts as a meditative proving and the “symptoms” of the only prover taking the placebo are taken into account as well. To give you an example of his mental stability, the symptom that was included was: “During the proving my wife and I both experienced the presence of a ghost in our house.“ This “symptom” was recorded in the proving despite the fact that the prover was taking placebo and despite the fact that no other prover has experienced this. So despite a very dissimilar experience, it was recorded in the proving.

Proving of North Wales Slate

This “proving” is a dream proving, where the provers have recorded their dreams which could be of value if the proving would not be supervised by the very people who taking the remedy as well and might have influenced the direction of the proving by sharing their experiences with the rest of the group and even discussing the substance the remedy was made of. Since the methodology is compromised in this way, the symptoms gained from this “proving” are of little value.

I could go on discussing the problems in other provings conducted by Misha Norland and the members of the School of Homeopathy, but I would present only more and more of the same evidence. Evidence being, that information gathered in these provings should not be used in homeopathy, because it was gathered using controversial and questionable non – scientific methods which do not produce objective information but may be largely influenced by the people conducting the proving.

Group and Proving Phenomena

To outline the method followed by Misha Norland and the School of Homeopathy, let’s discuss the article Group and Proving Phenomena by Misha Norland published in The Homoeopath No.72.

“At the School we have achieved results using a variety of stimuli: using

material substance, by holding it, looking at it, meditating upon it, as well as with the 30th to 200th potencies. We have invoked group provings by one member ‘holding’ the concept/image of a thing.”

 In other words, aside from actually taking the remedy, other approaches are used. The “provers” either think about the substance, hold it or simply look at it. That’s right, there’s no need to even take the remedy. Apparently if you look, hold it or even think about it, you will experience this elusive “essence” of the remedy. It is not surprising that the “essences” of remedies gathered in this way prove the doctrine of signatures. If you think about a falcon, or look at it, what other “images” can you get than flying, freedom, good vision, clarity of sight, predator, aggressivity, etc. Let us just compare the main ideas from the proving of Falco Peregrinus Disciplinatus. The main ideas are: Freedom, Focused, Clear Vision, Clarity, Above it all, Speed, Fierce and Passionate, Explosive anger, etc.

The proving has succeeded at simply brainstorming about the falcon and proves nothing, except the fact that if you know what is the remedy proven and you do a brainstorming session, results will be quite predictable. You will get the same “essence” as you would think when you gather your thoughts about the particular subject. In order to actually prove the remedy, and avoid these brainstorming sessions, nothing else than the double blind trial will do. When analyzing the provings done in such a way or with a more objectivity, you can discern a lot of new information about the remedy, especially things you would not suspect when thinking about the substance. There are plenty of examples in the old literature. Symptoms are discovered that seem odd and seem to have nothing to do with the original plant/animal/mineral, yet they are key to a correct prescription.

A quote from the same article will give us some clues about why the group of the provers  experience similar things and why “essences” are closely related to the original substance.

 “This stimulus, perhaps because it is amplified by the many co-experiencers, and its ‘reawakening’ at monthly ‘gatherings’ when experiences are recounted, is sufficient to produce long range effects.“.

 Not only do the provings contain people who know the original substance, they can freely influence everyone in these monthly interactions, so that it is made certain, that the proving will yield the desired result. There is no mystery why even the people not taking the remedy are included in the proving and experience similar symptoms. They are influenced by the recollection of other people’s experiences and placebo effect takes over.

 “In addition to following Jeremy’s [Sherr] proving methodology, we record our experiences some minutes after beginning the proving. We get images (such as black grave stones, waterfalls, orange flowers, and responses to these images such as associated feelings, sensations or thoughts); feelings (such as joy, sadness, and their responses such as smiling or weeping); sensations (such as floating, burning, itching, and their responses such as restlessness or scratching); thoughts and concepts which in turn may evoke images, feelings and sensations. This then is our primary data. It would be in accordance with tradition to say that proving responses are headed up by image at the top of a  natural hierarchy which proceeds down the levels, through thoughts to feelings to sensations.”

It has been established by multiple provings, that the symptoms of the remedy start manifesting some time after starting the proving. It can be minutes, but usually takes hours and even days. It is debatable, whether all the people were affected by the remedy just minutes after starting taking it, or whether they are influenced by other factors, such as meal they have just eaten, impressions of the day or actually knowing the proven substance and wanting to experience something right away. This data is then used as the primary data for the proving.

 “Naturally I felt obliged to run a proving of placebo. You see, I had speculated as to whether we were proving ourselves, our group psyche, whether a group’s theme or themes would emerge. The result was that no theme emerged within the group. This was a distinctly different experience from being under the influence of the proving of a thing, where common imagery, feelings and sensations dominate.”

No big surprise here. If provers know that they are taking a certain remedy, especially a substance that they are familiar with (a well-known animal or a plant) it is almost certain, that even before they start doing the proving, they will have some mental images and preconceptions. It is then easy to understand why these images are experienced in the provings, especially, when simply “meditating” about the substance. Placebo (or an unknown substance) would be a different thing. Proving where provers do not know what to expect and when they cannot form a mental image of the substance they are proving. It could be argued therefore, that emergence of an “image” about the remedy is then actually a good indication that the proving is biased and its results should not be used. This would be the case for nearly all the provings and especially all the provings done by Misha Norland and the School of Homeopathy.

 “A proving begins, in a literal sense, with the intention to prove a thing, with it being imagined, identified, obtained, and possibly potentised…It is common experience amongst provers that certain individuals … develop symptoms which subsequently are confirmed as belonging to the proving before anyone else had ‘taken’ the thing. I have parenthesised ‘taken’ because those who meditate upon the thing come up with results which are no less pertinent. Furthermore, we have found that those individuals within the group who wished to remain outside of the proving have been unable to do so; they are automatically included.”

This is true, the moment people know that something is about to be proven, they will expect something to happen and if they even know which remedy is going to be proven, they will form a mental image of the original substance. It is then no mystery, that the moment they will think about the proving, they will get the “right essence”.

 “It is only matter that is bound to space and time. The immaterial essence of the thing, actuated by the intention of the proving group constellates the action field. … the thing that we are dealing with is essence, spirit, … and is not bound within the constraints of space and time. Those who key into it are part of it irrespective of distance or time; they know it telepathically.”

I would not call the phenomena telepathy. It is simply thought and mental image. The moment you know the substance, the mental image you form about the substance will determine your experiences. It can be hardly called a telepathy. If I tell to a group of people to avoid at all costs thinking about monkeys, they will not be able to stop thinking about monkeys all the time.

Similar in proving an interesting substance. If I announce that at some stage “condom” will be proved, guess what everyone will be thinking of? STDs, condoms, pregnancy, AIDS, HIV, bubble, trapped inside of something… It is not surprising that the proving of condom has “discovered” exactly these “essences”.

 “The spiritual dynamis of intention, having no material substance, is not bound to  either space or time. Should we accept this, then it follows that proving experiences may not uncommonly predate a proving. However, the experiencer would not know what to make of these experiences for they must be held within the framework of the proving and  given its context to make sense.”

 This means, that the experiences are gathered even before the proving has begun and before anyone has taken anything.

 The summary of key points from modern “provings” can be summarized thusly:

- taking the remedy is not necessary to experience the remedy

- it is not necessary for the proving to begin to start experience the symptoms

 - it does not matter if you take placebo or not. You will experience valuable symptoms

 - proving experiences are based on telepathy.

 In the researched opinion of P & W,, that all information compiled by the above methods, and called “Provings”, with its complete lack of scientific protocol and a lack of Hahnemannian compliance in which the data has been assembled, negates the ‘worth’ of the information and should be discarded completely and removed from Materia Medica’s and Repertories immediately.

When did we as a specialist therapy, exchange science for telepathy and spirituality and give away the foundation of credibility in modern homoeopathy? The only conclusion that can be made is that the teachers, gurus and leading lights of modernistic homoeopathy are not homoeopaths.

 What defines a homoeopath? For the answer, and against the trend of modern homoeopathic wisdom, we must look to the medical doctor, pharmacist, and scientist upon whose research, the accurate prescriber and homoeopathic physician should take his or her counsel from, in order to practice medicine properly. Homoeopathy is a medical therapeutic specialty, and as such, needs these words taken to heart.

Aphorism 285, 6th Edition, footnote”

A fundamental principle of the homoeopathic physician (which distinguishes him from every physician of all older schools) is this, that he never employs for any patient a medicine, whose effects on the healthy human has not previously been carefully proven and thus made known to him.

 To prescribe for the sick on mere conjecture of some possible usefulness for some similar disease or from hearsay “that a remedy has helped in such and such a disease” – such conscienceless venture the philanthropic homoeopathist will leave to the allopath.

 A genuine physician and practitioner or our art will therefore never send the sick to any of the numerous mineral baths, because almost all are unknown so far as their accurate, positive effects on the healthy human organism is concerned, and when misused, must be counted among the most violent and dangerous drugs. In this way, out of a thousand sent to the most celebrated of these baths by ignorant physicians allopathically uncured and blindly sent there perhaps one or two are cured by chance more often return only apparently cured and the miracle is proclaimed aloud. Hundreds, meanwhile sneak quietly away, more or less worse and the rest remain to prepare themselves for their eternal resting place, a fact that is verified by the presence of numerous well-filled graveyards surrounding the most celebrated of these spas.*

 * A true homoeopathic physician, one who never acts without correct fundamental principles, never gambles with the life of the sick entrusted to him as in a lottery where the winner is in the ratio of 1 to 500 or 1000 (blanks here consisting of aggravation or death), will never expose any one of his patients to such danger and send him for good luck to a mineral bath, as is done so frequently by allopath’s in order to get rid of the sick in an acceptable manner spoiled by him or others.

 Homoeopaths today. Should read and re-read this directive. It defines what a homoeopath is and what a person claiming to be is or is not. To give a MEDICINE to someone require intimate knowledge of it’s accurately, scientifically researched, and reproducible symptom producing capabilities.

In releasing the provings, as conducted, upon the homoeopathic medical community, Misha Norland has joined the ranks of pseudo homoeopaths, and his provings, along with other modern guru’s, are putting the lives of patients in danger EXACTLY in the manner as described by Hahnemann.

Sadly for one young lady, it went beyond danger.

A 9 year old girl Nahkira Harris came to hospital where she was diagnosed with diabetes. Her parents elected to treat with homoeopathy. Had the homoeopath in question, been someone who heeded Hahnemann’s advice, principles and direction, the child might have received proper homoeopathic treatment with a defined case taking assessment and prescription of a proven medicine, and lived to prove its efficacy.

(To prescribe for the sick on mere conjecture of some possible usefulness for some similar disease or from hearsay “that a remedy has helped in such and such a disease” – such conscienceless venture the philanthropic homoeopathist will leave to the allopath)

 “Misha Norland, a homeopath based in Devon, suggested the Harrises give Nahkira syzygium,  a remedy popular in India but less effective than insulin. It served only to mask Nahkira’s symptoms, making her appear well when in reality she was becoming dangerously ill…” (Quote from the article)

Unfortunately, Nakhira died, because she did not receive the treatment she deserved. This outcome of this case resulted in a world-wide criticism of homeopathy.

We offer no criticism of the individual other than the practitioner claims to be a homoeopath and follows Hahnemannian standards. This is clearly NOT the case and needs to be stated publically, and real practitioners of Homoeopathy distance themselves from this type of practise.

Giving a prescription of a medicine, unknown to the practitioner, and without a proper proving, and with the unfortunate outcome, should have been warning enough to cease with the non Hahnemannian and scientific protocols in his own flawed attempts to establish the action of substances for homoeopathic use.

As Hahnemann states: “A true homoeopathic physician, one who never acts without correct fundamental principles, never gambles with the life of the sick entrusted to him as in a lottery where the winner is in the ratio of 1 to 500 or 1000 (blanks here consisting of aggravation or death), will never expose any one of his patients to such danger.”

 

 

Newspaper Report

Case (source)

published in Dec 6, 1993 by the http://www.independent.co.uk.

(The original link no longer works http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-girl-that-nobody-saved-1465753.html)

 The death of nine-year-old Nahkira Harris from diabetes led to her parents being pilloried as crazed, homeopathic Rastafarians. Found guilty of manslaughter, Dwight Harris was sent to jail and his wife Beverley was given a suspended sentence. True, the Harrises made mistakes, but they were also failed by the healthcare system. They have now lodged an appeal. Steve Boggan has spoken to Beverley and tells the Harrises’ side of the story.

By the time she was admitted to hospital, Nahkira Harris had no discernible blood pressure. Despite massive blood and plasma transfusions, despite the desperate attempts of doctors to revive her, she never regained consciousness.

 

 Nahkira was nine years old. She died not from a rare or incurable disease but from simple diabetes – and from the confusion and bad communication that surrounded her.

The tabloids and the courts said it was her parents’ fault. Beverley and Dwight Harris were described as extremist vegan Rastafarians, crazed homeopathic nutcases and just plain cruel. Rumours spread that they had taken Nahkira to Africa for tribal medicine and given her homeopathic remedies rather than let her take insulin.

After a trial last month in which they were accused of gross negligence in the handling of their daughter’s condition, Beverley and Dwight were convicted of manslaughter. The authorities said they prevented Nahkira receiving insulin, but the couple say they had no objection to the drug and simply wanted someone to discuss it with them before their daughter embarked on a life of daily injections. What really happened may never be fully known. There is no doubt, however, that someone let Nahkira down.

Dwight Harris, 32, describes himself as a moderate Christian although he also adheres to Rastafarian teachings and is a vegetarian – a lifestyle he encourages in his five other children. He also tells them to filter their water and avoid additives, but he is not opposed to modern medicine and he had never resorted to homeopathic remedies before Nahkira fell ill in December 1991.

Dwight is in Lincoln prison serving two and a half years; Beverley, 34, is free, but with an 18-month suspended sentence. Last week she and her children moved into a new home in Nottingham.

On 14 December 1991 Nahkira, a lively child who liked dancing and baking cakes, was feeling unwell. Her father immediately took her to see Dr Naomi Phillips, their GP, who suspected diabetes and made an appointment for her to have blood tests at the Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham. These confirmed that she was a diabetic, and four days later the Harrises took her to the paediatric department at Queen’s to find out what to do next.

At this point communications began to break down. At the hospital they spoke to Dr Shirley-Anne Derrick, who was just beginning her 32nd hour on duty. The Harrises wanted to know about insulin: was it made from animal products? Was there an alternative? Could it be tested in Nahkira’s blood outside her body, because she had a number of allergies? All these questions were later linked to a religious zealotry that did not exist. Hospital staff insist that Dwight had vowed not to give Nahkira insulin, but he denies this. Being a Rastafarian does not preclude the taking of insulin or modern medicines.

The exhausted Dr Derrick did what she could, eventually telling the Harrises quite simply that without insulin, Nahkira would die. The family say she made this assertion in front of the child. Nahkira burst into tears; the Harrises asked to see a consultant. It was 4.30pm; they were told to return at 8pm. They signed a ‘discharged against medical advice’ form and took their daughter home for a meal.

When they returned – without Nahkira – they found that no appointment had been arranged with Dr Derek Johnston, the consultant in charge of the paediatric team. The couple were late (the hospital says they were one hour 45 minutes late), although they had telephoned to say they would be. The paediatric registrar on duty, Dr Stephanie Anne Smith, was not available. The Harrises, bewildered and angry, were told to go home.

 ‘Later we were accused of not getting treatment for Nahkira, but we did try,’ Beverley says. ‘We have no objections to insulin and there is nothing in our beliefs that would have prevented Nahkira taking it. We just wanted someone to talk to us about it first.

 ‘No one at any point told us that Nahkira needed insulin now. We knew diabetes was something she was developing, but she was nine and had been fine. We thought insulin was something she would need eventually.’

Dwight went back to see the GP, Dr Phillips, on 23 December. He asked for another appointment to be made – but not with Dr Derrick. Dr Phillips said she could not interfere in the choice of doctor; no further appointment was made. Between 18 and 20 December both the hospital and the Nottinghamshire social services department had been trying to find the family, but they complained later that they had not been told about Dwight’s visit to Dr Phillips on the 23rd.

 Dr Johnston, the paediatric consultant, had learnt of the problem with the Harrises and asked Margaret Hosking, a community diabetic nurse, to contact the family. She went to their home on 20 December but the Harrises were staying with a friend nearby because a business venture had collapsed and their electricity had been cut off. The authorities wrongly assumed the family had gone to ground.

 A social worker, Parminder Soar, was dispatched to try to contact the family. Her speciality was racial affairs, but she does not appear to have been told that Nahkira was in imminent danger. She left a note that puzzled the Harrises: ‘Hello] I am a black social worker and I work at the Queen’s Medical Centre. I was asked to become involved because I too am black: although I am Asian I do understand and face the racism we all do as black people.’ She went on to say she understood why the Harrises were angry with the hospital.

Dwight and Beverley, who collected mail from their home each day, ignored that letter but they did respond to a note left by Ms Hosking – Dwight left a message on her answerphone later that day, a Friday, but nothing was done.

The Independent has obtained confidential minutes of a case conference held in February 1992 after Nahkira’s death. These show that Ms Hosking felt she had done all she could, particularly since Dwight had left no details of where he could be contacted. (It was obvious, however, that he had received her note at the family home in Radford.)

The minutes say that tracing the Harrises ‘was taking up a lot of time and she did not think it was her job to trace the family further . . .’ She thought involving the police would be ‘too confrontational’. At the trial, she said that Dr Johnston agreed she had done all she could and should stop looking. The social workers closed the case on 6 January, even though Nahkira was supposed to be desperately ill.

 At the case conference, Dr Johnston said he had told David Sheard, the group principal social worker, that Nahkira’s condition was ‘potentially life-threatening’ and said it might be necessary to invoke the Children Act, under which an emergency protection order could give the authorities the power to find Nahkira, take her into care and administer whatever treatment was necessary.

 The minutes show that Mr Sheard denies the Children Act was ever discussed. In an addendum to the minutes, he adds: ‘I also noted that the parents were told if she didn’t receive insulin she would die, but that no indication re time scales was given to them.’

 It is common ground that the urgency of the need for immediate treatment was not conveyed to the Harrises.

 Beverley says: ‘We didn’t know what we could do next. We had been to the hospital twice, and we were sent away without seeing anybody, we had replied to the special nurse’s note and we had been back to our GP, but we still didn’t have another appointment.

 ‘We thought it must be a question of waiting for an appointment to come through and in the meantime a friend suggested we try homeopathic remedies.’

Misha Norland, a homeopath based in Devon, suggested the Harrises give Nahkira syzygium, a remedy popular in India but less effective than insulin. It served only to mask Nahkira’s symptoms, making her appear well when in reality she was becoming dangerously ill. Dr Phillips had given the Harrises a bundle of urine sticks to check Nahkira’s urine/sugar level daily. According to Beverley, the readings were normal.

 In court it was alleged that Nahkira had lost nearly one-third of her weight during the six weeks between the diagnosis and her death. But the record of her weight on 18 December was missing, so a nurse submitted a ‘recollection’ of about 30kg (4st10lb). Nahkira’s corpse weighed 23kg (3st9lb), but family friends say her normal weight was around 25kg.

 The prosecution argued that Dwight and Beverley must have seen their daughter wasting away; her parents said she lost a little weight, but they put that down to a new, carefully monitored diet.

 On 31 January Nahkira developed what looked like flu. Beverley and Dwight took her to see Chris Hammond, a GP who was also a homeopath. He noted that she appeared to be slipping into a coma and, after talking to the parents about her condition, arranged for her to be taken to hospital for insulin. But Nahkira slipped deeper into her coma on the way to the hospital and did not recover.

 The coroner asked the police to investigate after Dr Johnston, the head paediatrician at Queen’s, wrote to him to say Nahkira’s death was entirely avoidable. This was the conclusion the jury reached, laying all the blame on the parents.

It may be argued that they failed Nahkira in some way, but they have to live with that. Were they bad parents? Tony Normington, Nahkira’s headmaster at the Elms primary school, told the court they were excellent and loving parents, if anything a little ‘over-protective’. Their MP, Alan Simpson, believes they have been made scapegoats for the failures of the hospital and the social services.

 ‘I don’t believe the Harrises were bad parents,’ he says. ‘They may have made some poor judgements, but the mechanisms were there to avoid putting them in the position where they could make those judgements. The hospital, which knew more than the Harrises about how ill Nahkira really was, and the social services had the power to seek an emergency protection order, but they did not do so.

 ‘The Harrises were convicted for supposedly being negligent. But if they failed that child, they were not alone.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 comments , , , , , ,

Advantages of the Therapeutic Pocket Book

6 August, 2012 Admin Comment, Boenninghausen, case-taking

I first looked at the Therapeutic Pocket Book in 1983 during my training. It was the Allens version. I remember flicking through the pages and thinking that it was very concise, not easy to understand and seemed quite vague in its symptoms. I did try one case with it, I dont remember the case details, (It was a case of diarrhea)  but I do remember I came to the remedy Aconite, which I dismissed out of hand (well its only an acute remedy you know!) and put the book down. Later in the 90′s when I began to use the methodology of Boenninghausen more, I cant begin to tell you how many cases of bowel problems, low grade fevered diarrhea that have been helped with Aconite.

In the mid 90′s, George Dimitriadis was stimulated to begin an exhaustive investigation into the Boenninghausen methodology after attending a seminar where the practitioner used the Allens version. In 2000 he released his competely rewritten and exhaustively researched work the TBR. The layout of the book has been changed from the original to his own anatomical referencing, and consequently the rubrics have been placed in other chapters according to his schema.

When I moved to Florida in the early 2000′s, I had chance to visit numerous colleges, museums and libraries collecting data regarding  homoeopathic history etc, and started to compile notes regarding Boenninghausen. In the mid 2000′s, teaming up with Vladimir Polony, we started to compile a computerised version of the Therapeutic Pocket Book from the notes I had,

P & W decided to keep the original layout of the Therapeutic Pocket book as published by Boenninghausen in 1846. We actually have in the software the Original German edition which has been updated in terms of accuracy regarding correcting Remedy errors and grading, for which we are incredibly indebted to The Hahnemann Institute in Sydney for their generous sharing of information.

Vladimir and myself undertook to translate the work into English from the original German. It took years longer than we thought simply because the language meaning and usage has changed from the 1800′s with regard to medical phrases and descriptions. We would spend hours poring over dictionaries of the time period, in German and English, along with medical texts trying to ascertain the 1800′s description of disease so we could accurately utilise it in modern parlance.

Once this had been completed, we devised several protocols for testing rubrics, medicines and occurrences within the Repertory itself. We linked the rubrics that had the same remedies and values and meaning together, so that there was no danger of using two SAME rubrics in a repertorisation that would cause confusion in the repertorization.

We made a system so that in choosing one rubric, a number of other rubrics were offered for evaluation that had similar meaning,  to be used or discarded at the practitioners choosing. This was done so that a rubric was not inadvertantly missed in selection, through lack of knowledge of its existence.

We then added a Spanish translation, facilitated by Dr and Mrs Zamora, and then a Hebrew translation facilitated by Vera Resnick.

All the versions share identical rubric numbers, so as to be able to switch between German, English, Hebrew and Spanish to check for comprehension in a  native speakers language. (We are working on more language options).

It takes a while to change mindset from using the repertory of KENT to the Therapeutic Pocket Book. However the benefits are far outweighed by the effort expended. Confidence grows in the remedy selection simply by the results.

Please remember one thing. This is NOT A PRESCRIBING REPERTORY. It will simply bring a selection of 1 or more medicines that cover the inputted symptoms and a quick look at the MATERIA MEDICA will be the arbiter of which remedy you will give. If a case is inputted correctly, the choice can be made within a few minutes depending on your knowledge of Materia Medica and understanding of what you are looking for.

Boenninghausen captured the ability to encapsulate Hahnemanns method to cover a large amount of remedies for differentiation. Its a shame to waste it.

Please see http://homeopathyonline.org for information regarding the SYNOPSIS program.

 

No comments , , , , ,

Scientificity of Homoeopathic MEDICINE

6 August, 2012 Admin Comment, case-taking, Historical
After recent experience with colleges purporting to teach homoeopathy, and in observing a few patient prescriptions by followers of the various cults within the therapy, a couple of comments are below. These are not aimed at the individuals, for I am sure they are very nice people, but at the prevailing mindset. Anyway, here are the comments.
Richard Laing
August 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm
The people who are not following the masters, old or new, are those at the Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation, whose work on curing cancer is well documented now in a very large series of cases. Search for Banerji protocol to see more. We don’t need to argue about whose way is best if we can show some results!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Karin Mont, Chair, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, UK —  response to - XXII Indian National Homoeopathic Science Congress in New Delhi - Decision to call the combination remedy prescribing ‘un-homoeopathic’

Although it may seem somewhat alarming to consider ‘standardised homeopathy’, various states in India have been talking about banning combination remedies for years now, but the production of them flourishes in Europe, a situation which is unlikely to change. Although India is without question one of the leaders in homeopathic development today, it follows a very traditionalist approach to prescribing (and education!), which may well still meet the needs of its citizens. However, in other parts of the world, especially where allopathic drug suppression has been prevalent for decades, ‘pure’ Hahnemannian  homeopathy is proving less and less effective, hence the increasing use of combination remedies, nosodes, sarcodes, high potencies etc. I’m sure that were he alive today, Hahnemann would be evolving his prescribing methodologies to reflect the changes to the vital force which our current lifestyles have imposed upon us. So, rather than being concerned by India’s apparent attempt to hold back development in our understanding of homeopathy, let’s see how successful this proposed policy will be in the long run. Time will tell, and since homeopathy is both multi faceted and generous, I personally believe there’s room for more than one approach!”

It would seem that the two comments above are representative of the viewpoint of Homoeopathic medical doctors and appointed spokespersons for modern homoeopathic therapists..
It is disappointing to see this viewpoint take hold in the West mainly because it demonstrates an alarming resurgence of a non medical and non scientific approach to the application of medicines using the establish protocol of Homoeopathic prescribing.
There is no question in my mind that the modern viewpoint comes from a total lack of knowledge regarding the therapy of homoeopathy or the practice thereof by Hahnemannian methods. On what basis can a person state “homoeopathy is proving less and less effective” unless they know how to practice according to Hahnemanns directives? Why is it that for those utilising Hahnemannian methodology, that the patients respond well to treatment and do not need nosodes, sarcodes and high potencies as standard? On what basis can a comment be made for the efficacy of a high potency over a low one as a preference? How can a person be sure that Hahnemann would be “evolving his prescribing methodologies” for modern lifestyles?
This statement really frightens me.  ”We don’t need to argue about whose way is best if we can show some results!”
Results compared to what? Allopathy? Drug suppression? Naturopathy? On what basis can any therapy be given without a protocol and scientific proof and long term results documented? Oncologists,  in treating certain cancers show amazing results with proven results. The long term effects of drug treatments, dependencies and affinity to getting another disease state or immune weakness are some of the areas of concern with certain treatments. Most certainly, this statement cannot be aimed toward REAL homoeopathy with a protocol and a systematic approach to treatment simply because modern homoeopathic therapists do not know Hahnemannian homoeopathy. At what stage can a therapy ignore a natural law and eventually cause its own problems?
One thing that needs to be said is that the use use of a potentized medicine in a treatment, does NOT make it a homoeopathic treatment, and does not make the person giving it a homoeopath.
No medical intervention or treatment should be given without a long period of trialing and testing. Hahnemann took EIGHT years before he began treating with Homoeopathy. There were many books and papers and experiments written and researched on medicines, reactions, similarities, and results before he cautiously stepped into treating with his therapy.
Hahnemann made the majority of his cures with 30c and under. He made the majority of his treatments with less than 150 medicines. He treated the same diseases as we have today, some of them worse. He treated suppressed disease states and mixed diseases. Homoeopathy, the therapy, is based on a natural law. The law never fails, but the ability to respond to it sometimes does if the human economy is weak or unable to respond. That is when other protocols that artificially stimulate or suppress or maintain are required. With these will come dependence on medication or ultimately death through an inharmonious balance to sustain life.
We are not opposed to people using the therapy of their choice. We are not opposed to personal opinion. We just do not want Homoeopathy decried, devalued and dismissed by people who use the label homoeopath who will not utilise the proper protocols, and worse still have no clue what homoeopathy is. The current state of ignorance regarding the origins, the principles and most shockingly, the lack of researched knowledge about the power and scope of the original provings and how to apply them to the patient,  does not bode well for the continuance of the therapy, or the wellbeing of the patients seeking help.
In general Homoeopathy never fails. Only the homoeopath. As long as we remember that, it should spur us on to examining the protocols and research to see where we can do better.
No comments , , , , ,

Lyme Disease

26 June, 2012 case-taking, Cases, Practitioner Comment

Female patient, White, age 42. Southern State of USA presented with Lyme Disease.

The patient was fairly advanced in the development of the pathology. After thorough physical examination, a detailed case taking ensued to find the appropriate homoeopathic remedy.

Patient, a school teacher was normally full of energy and worked long hours and enjoyed interactive stimulation. She now was completely devoid of energy, lethargic, irritable, complained of joint pains, like having been “run over by a dump truck and the bones squeezed hard”.

Patient had a rash with spots on her face and chest which looked blue. Complained of internal prickling like pins and needles in her arms and legs which she could not scratch. During our conversation, she complained that drinks did not pick her up and nothing in the food line made her feel revived or better. Some depression and sadness over the condition.

Using the P & W Repertory, the patients case was evaluated.

Combining this with the physical results, the patient was prescribed Phos LM 0/1 daily for 3 weeks.

From the first dose, the patient began to sleep better. Over the course of a week, the skin rash/spots started to clear. The joint pains intensified for 3 days then diminished. Her irritability became less.

During the follow up, as things were still improving, I continued her on the 0/1 daily. 2 months later on a follow up, blood tests were taken and everything was showing normal. I continued her on the 0/1 for another month until her weakness disappeared completely then stopped the medicine.

The patient was discharged.

No comments , , , , ,
« Older Entries  

Bad Behavior has blocked 4367 access attempts in the last 7 days.