Jacqualine Dimitriadis

D.Nutr., Gr.D.Hom(syd), GHISyd

Of recent times homœopathic teaching and practice worldwide have become increasingly devoid of logic in approach and therefore certainty in outcome. The resulting wide-spread lack of confidence prevalent in our chosen field is reflected in the lack of students undertaking the study of Homœopathy, a decline in new graduates commencing homœopathic practice, and in a reduced number of patients seeking treatment. A world-wide crisis is looming and unless a change comes Homœopathy is headed on a path of self destruction.

To think that as long ago as in 1797 Hahnemann wrote an essay titled Are the Obstacles to Certainty and Simplicity in Practical Medicine Insurmountable? where in he expressed his discontent with the situation at that time. [1]

I myself felt external hindrances to our art more than I could have wished; they continually beset my sphere of action; and I, too, long considered them insurmountable, and almost made up my mind to despair, and to esteem my profession as but the sport of inevitable accident and insuperable obstacles, when the thought arose in me, ‘are not we physicians partly to blame for the complexity and the uncertainty of our art?’

Hahnemann resolved this unpredictability and lack of certainty by constructing a system which enables us to successfully treat any possible combination of disease symptoms with confidence and surety. Now, two hundred years on, the so called guru’s of progress and advancement in thinking have reduced his simple and straight forward approach to an unrecognisable complexity of ideas and theories (yet presented as fact), which in no way make our task of prescribing any simpler or more accurate. Such theorising was repeatedly warned against by Hahnemann and by others before and since. For example the following quotation comes from Thomas Sydenham (Pechey, 1734), yet is so equally applicable to the current situation! [2]

For it can Scarce be imagined how many errors have been occasioned by an hypothesis, when writers, … have assigned such phænomena for diseases as are nowhere to be found but in their own brains…. So that the Art which is now excercised, contrived by men given to quaint words, is rather the art of talking than of Healing.

Hahnemann warns us against attributing healing properties to substances based on their physical properties and appearance alone. In 1817 he writes: [3]

I shall spare the ordinary medical school the humiliation of reminding it of the folly of those ancient physicians who, determining the medicinal power of crude drugs from their signature, that is, from their colour and form, gave the testicle-shaped Orchitis-root in order to restore manly vigour; the phallus impudicus,  to strengthen weak erections; ascribed to the yellow tumeric the power of curing jaundice, and considered hypericum perforatum, whose yellow flowers on being crushed yield a red juice (St John’s blood) useful in hæmorrhages and wounds, &c.; but I shall refrain from taunting the physicians of the present day with these absurdities, although traces of them are to be met with in the most modern treatises on materia medica.

Hahnemann was speaking of the doctrine of signatures, a method popular for choosing a medicine at the time. He would be truly shocked to discover that many renowned ‘teachers’ of Homœopathy, today, are still basing their whole method of remedy choice on these out-dated ideas. We hear of patients being prescribed mouse because they appear and act as timidly as a mouse, or eagle because they dream of soaring high in the sky, or dog’s milk because they happen to say that they ‘feel like a bitch,’ or lobster because they go bright red in the sun.

Other recent new school approaches involve grouping medicines and patients into categories in an attempt to make the job of remedy selection an easier one, once again making assumptions for example that all metallic substances or all plant medicines (so called kingdom prescribing) have a similar sphere of action, which can be relied upon as a basis for prescribing. About this Hahnemann also has something to say: [4]

Perhaps, however, the botanical affinity may allow us to infer a similarity of action? This is far from being the case, as there are many examples of opposite, or at least very different powers, in one and the same family of plants, and that in most of them. We shall take as our basis the most perfect natural system, that of Murray.

In the family of the coniferæ, the inner bark of the fir-tree (pinus sylvestris) gives to the inhabitants of the northern regions a kind of bread, whereas the bark of the yew tree (taxus baccifera) gives-death …

Hahnemann in this essay gives two pages of examples of plants grouped in the same botanical family due to outward appearance though having contrasting actions when consumed. He goes on to sum up the fallacy of this approach by saying: [5]

I am far from denying, however, the many important hints the natural system may afford to the philosophical student of the material medica and to him who feels it his duty to discover new medicinal agents; but these hints can only help to confirm and serve as commentary to facts already known, or in case of untried plants they may give rise to hypothetical conjectures, which are, however, far from approaching even to probability.

But how can a perfect similarity of action be expected amongst groups of plants, which are only arranged in the so called natural system, on account of often slight external similarity, when even plants that are much more nearly connected, plants of one and the same genus, are sometimes so different in their medicinal effects.

… be the number of genera ever so many whose species resemble each other very much in their effects, the lesser number of very differently acting species should make us distrustful of this mode of drawing inferences, since we have not here to do with mechanical experiments, but that most important and difficult concern of mankind – health …

Nothing remains but to experiment on the human body.

We so often hear from these modern day ‘masters’ that Hahnemann’s methods are outdated, yet, we can see that the approach that many of them are taking actually pre-date those of Hahnemann. In an attempt to be clever and original they are actually going backward in time and experimenting with ideas which have failed long ago. If they were to read Hahnemann they would discover he himself warned against these practices. [6]

This improved healing art, i.e., the homœopathic, draws not its knowledge from those impure sources of the materia medica hitherto in use, pursues not that antiquated, dreamy, false path we have just pointed out, but follows the way consonant with nature. It administers no medicine to combat the diseases of mankind before testing their pure effects; that is, observing what changes they can produce in the health of a healthy man-this is pure materia medica.

Hahnemann also warned against making speculations on medicinal action based purely on the chemistry of a substance. Yet today we see teachers instructing materia medica study based on a metals position on the periodic table, and the subsequent assumed relationships held with those in close proximity.  Hahnemann writes: [7]

Chemistry, also, has taken upon itself to disclose a source as which the general therapeutic properties of drugs are to be ascertained…

Attempts were made a century ago by Geoffrey, but still more frequent have such attempts been made since medicine became an art, to discover, by means of chemistry, the properties of remedies which could not be known in any other way.

I shall say nothing about the merely theoretical fallacies of Baume, Steffens, and Burdach, whereby the medicinal properties of medicines were arbitrarily declared to reside in their gaseous and certain other chemical constituents alone, and at the same time it was assumed without the slightest grounds, on mere conjecture, that these hypothetical elementary constituents possessed certain medicinal powers; so that it was really amusing to see the facility and rapidity with which these gentlemen could create the medicinal properties of every remedy out of nothing.

Further to the above, I must specifically mention the currently popular teachings confusing the proper provings of medicines (knowledge of medicinal action) with the known composition and qualities of the metals and their relationships to each other, on the periodic table of the elements. The paragraph below from an unknown author on wikipedia summarises the work of Jan Scholten on this subject:

Scholten’s first book, Homœopathy and Minerals, was published in 1993, and has been translated into 10 languages. In this book, Scholten describes the use of minerals in homeopathy, especially unknown remedies, and introduced a new method of analysis he called group analysis. This, Scholten claimed, makes it possible to predict the “homeopathic pictures” of unknown remedies, and to handle the huge amount of information in homeopathy; as the “essential characteristics of a group of remedies” with the same element are being extracted.

The above summary has four direct inconsistencies to real knowledge of material medica.

1. Firstly, unknown remedies cannot be described as homœopathic until properly proved.
2. Group analysis is unacceptable due to its suggestive and non-scientific nature.
3. There is no such thing as a homœopathic picture, but only proving/disease symptoms.
4. Grouping medicines and searching for essential characteristics of a group of medicines is of no assistance and is moreover misleading. The true aim should be to find the individualising and unique characteristic of each medicine.

Scholten continues with his theorising attributing each row of the periodic table with a so called “theme of life.” These include unborn, individuality, family and relations, work, creativity, leadership/autonomy retirement and intuition. According to Scholten, an open spiral of chemical elements shows the development of “self awareness.”

Any provings which may have been carried out at all on these “unknown remedies” have been done so with an already strongly held bias and expectation based on the preconceived theories. The “theme of life” groupings are nothing but philosophical speculation which bears no relationship to real homœopathic prescribing. Comparisons between various remedies should only be made after the thorough proving of each substance has been completed.

Theorising on medicinal capabilities, creating complex imaginary systems and relationships between substances and then going even further into fantastical realms and manufacturing deep psychological analyses have no place in science, and therefore not in Homœopathy.   Nothing certain or helpful, for the true homœopathic prescriber, can be gained from this approach. Only confusion and failure will result for the naive and poorly educated beginner who tries to replicate these teachings.

The concept of Constitutional types in Homœopathy, along with an over emphasis on mental and emotional characteristics have caused unending confusion amongst students and teachers alike. The constitution of a person is a complex combination of inherited characteristics and environmental exposures and experiences over a person’s lifetime. The combination of all these factors leads to an endless number of possible outcomes that will never fit neatly and cleanly into the provings of any one medicine.  Secondly, many of the ideas regarding the constitutional type (physical build, preferences in pastimes, colours, imaginations, etc. etc) have never been, and can never be, proved by a medicine. The argument put forward here being that certain physical or emotional types are more likely to require a particular medicine. Sometimes we find truth in this but it can also lead us off the correct path by making quick assumptions on first seeing the patient, even before firstly carefully taking down their actual symptoms. To think this way will lead in many cases to failure to prescribe the correct medicine for the patient’s disease; after all it is the patient’s disease we are there to treat and not their physique or personality. To reiterate what Hahnemann has to say on this subject. [8]

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 and represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.

James Tyler Kent, one of the first propagators of this type of approach, himself warns against adopting this method alone in the preface to his Lectures on Materia Medica in the preface to the book. He stresses this should only be used to assist the memory in learning, to more easily identify the medicine. [9]

The continuous study of the Materia Medica by the aid of a full repertory for comparison is the only means of continuing in a good working knowledge… To learn the Materia Medica, one must master Hahnemann’s Organon, after Organon, the symptomatology, and a full repertory must be the constant reference books, if careful homœopathic prescribing is to be attained and maintained.

We currently live in an age of distraction and we are all looking for a quick and easy and entertaining approach to solving our day-to-day problems. We need to remind ourselves constantly that when it comes to our patient’s health there should be no shortcuts. If we expect Homœopathy to work, we have to abide by the definition and guidelines set down for us by its founder. Homœopathy is about studying the provings of our medicines, without the addition of any theories or speculations, matching them to the disease symptoms of our patients in each and every case – similia similibus curantur. This is all that is necessary in order to find certainty and simplicity in prescribing. [10]

“I do not believe that it is the smallness of our knowledge, but only the faulty application of it, that hinders us from approaching, in medical science, nearer to certainty and simplicity.”

1. SZ, male, æt. 18 years, student. Presented Aug. 2005 with asthma since age 28 months. His asthma is aggravated in hot/humid weather, and by physical exertion which brings on severe oppression of chest with dry cough. The asthma is better by sitting upright. Particularly allergic to cats – exposure is followed by swelling of the face, obstructed coryza, and asthma.

Please consider this  case and post your analyses – we can discuss later.

for our ‘homœopathic’ organisations & teaching instuitutions

to pause, reflect &  re-evaluate what they are endorsing, under the name of Homœopathy

Kenneth D’Aran

Adv.D.Hom., MATMS, MAHA, AROH, AFIIAH

kdaran@bigpond.net.au

While I am aware this may appear too harsh, and whilst acknowledging all the voluntary work and good intentions of homœopathic organisations in general, I feel impelled to write this request expressing my concern.

Are our professional associations so ‘open’ that anything ‘feel good’, is OK, or that anything new is a sign of progress and an opportunity not to be missed? And is our membership so unknowledgable of the foundation principle of Homœopathy proper,[i]^,[ii] of its basis in inductive science and its requirement for critical thinking, that very few actually understand enough to voice a complaint? Or are they more concerned about being thought of as clutching to old ideas, of being unprogressive, a ‘dinosaur’? Or is it they are just easily influenced by the ‘spin’ and promise of ‘greater things,’ of ‘the mystical,’ ‘the cure’? etc.

And is it really Homœopathy, the science, which is to blame for our own lack of success in the clinical situation, as reasoned for their interest in pursuing these other ideas, often to the exclusion of traditional practice? Do we blame physics for the physicist’s miscalculation, or Medicine as a whole for the doctor’s blunder?

What can I say about these current practices mistakenly promulgated under the name of Homœopathy, yet which have no real connection except by inference, extrapolation, imagination, of similarity (and their use of potencies), and which consider one or more physical or chemical properties of a substance as a basis for prescribing – the colour, taste, odour, etc., as well their grouping according to one or other convenient taxonomy.[iii] All this, despite what Hahnemann has clearly stated: [iv]

“Perhaps, however, botanical affinity may allow us to infer a similarity of action ? This is far from being the case, as there are many examples of the opposite, or at least very different powers, in one and the same family of plants, and that in most of them. We shall take as a basis the most perfect natural system, that of Murray. … How varied are the medical properties of of all the members of the family ascyroideœ! And those of the dumosœ and those of the trihilatœ…. I am far from denying, however, that many important hints the natural system may afford to the philosophical student of the materia medica and to him who feels it is his duty to discover new medicinal agents; but these hints can only help to confirm and serve as a commentary to the facts already known, or in the case of untried plants they may give rise to hypthetical conjectures, which are, however, far from approaching even to probability.”

Then we see the absurdities which seem to have overrun our science, at least in the most vocal quarters:[v] the prescribing of eagle in cases who dream of birds; of lobster for those who report becoming as ‘red as a lobster’ when in the sun; of salmon for those complaining that life is an ‘uphill struggle’; of echidna for those with a ‘prickly nature’, etc., and all too often without regard for the actual pathology or other characteristic symptoms (totality) presented by the patient for the attention of the practitioner, and each such ‘remedy’ having no properly conducted provings or toxicological similarity.

And what of those who would prescribe upon a patient’s individual idiosyncrasies: the patient’s posturing, their likes & dislikes, their choice of colours in clothing, in music, or entertainment, or even their love of the ocean, mountains, forests,  their favourite animal (totemism), etc. or regressing the patient to recall their worse experiences & feelings associated with these past experiences & then assumming a causal ‘delusion’ or ‘sensation’ of somekind.[i] These normal traits & feelings in no way being pathological or indicative of illness, are nevertheless often ‘plucked out’ (through the use of what can be seen as free association psychological questioning techniques) of the patient in preference to actual symptoms of their suffering, and then used as a basis for the remedy selection, itself imagined to be capable of producing similar ‘effects’.[ii]

In Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine: from §6, we understand that ‘unprejudiced’ means free from forming any assumptions, pre-judgements, or speculative theories, metaphysical or otherwise, (‘transendental speculations’, as here termed by Hahnemann), on any disease presentation. Throughout this primary work we are instructed through numerous aphorisms ‘that the practitioner takes note of nothing but the changes in’: §6 continues;

“…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 & observed by the physician…”

What is important is the change that is oberved by the patient, their attendants, or by the practitioner during their examination, noting without speculation, those which indicate a shift from one state to another, from health to disease.[iii] Here also a change of disposition along with the totality of the presenting condition – no pre-conceived hierachy between the emotions, mental function, & physical manifestations, just the unique order as they present.[iv] Nothing smart or sexy, just simply Homœopathy. Not classical, not modern, just Homœopathy. No assumptions on normal cultural variations, philosophical & other belief systems, just what are the changes from the former healthy state to the now diseased person.

The idea that one can change their normal habits & behavour (when not a part of the changes in disease)[v] with a medicine (remedy) is not within the scope of Homœopathy, as may be seen in Hahanemann’s own words (Organon, §224):

“If the mental disease be not quite developed, and if it be still somewhat doubtful whether it really arose from a corporeal affection, or did not rather result from faults of education, bad practices, corrupt morals, neglect of the mind, superstition or ignorance; the mode of deciding this point will be, that if it proceed from one or other of the latter causes it will diminish and be improved by sensible friendly exhortations, consolatory arguments, serious representations and sensible advice, whereas a real moral or mental malady, depending on bodily disease, would be speedily aggravated by such a course, the melancholic would become still more dejected, querulous, inconsolable and reserved, the spiteful maniac would thereby become still more exasperated, and the chattering fool would become manifestly more foolish.*

*. It would seem as though the mind, in these cases, felt with uneasiness and grief the truth of these rational representations and acted upon the body as if it wished to restore the lost harmony, but that the body, by means of its disease, reacted upon the organs of the mind and disposition and put them in still greater disorder by a fresh transference of its sufferings on to them.”

Having attended many seminars and myself applied most of the theories & systems we see around, I was predominately disppointed in the outcomes & later reflected on the illogic of what had been suggested by some well intentioned but mis-informed international or national “homœopaths”. [vi] For these reasons and from my own experience, I am not impressed with the increasing number of seminars wrongly held under the banner of Homœopathy – what appears certain is that these speakers are practicing some other therapy, one based on symbolism, mysticism, perceptionism, extrapolationism, realisationism, feelgoodism, etc., and would therefore more properly be termed Symbolopaths.[vii]

Definitions

Homœopathy, like any other distinct science and therapy, must reside between the confines of clear definition, and remain at all times tethered to its single foundation principle of similars. It’s not enough to just say look at the outcomes, it’s not about that – acupuncture, herbalism, flower remedies (& other energy exchange medicines), western medicine etc., etc. all claim and get results, and at times even ‘miracles’; yet we don’t teach these techniques under the banner of Homœopathy. Why? Because they are not based on ‘Like Cures Like’.

Teaching institutions & professional organisations

I identify the problem as arising from the fact that very few institutions teach students to study in a systematic way (with tutorials & lessons in critical thinking), the entire Organon of Medicine as well as related source texts. If we don’t take stock of this crisis & the teaching of Homœopathy isn’t corrected, in the near future, the system of Homœopathy (proper) will become even less recognisable, and the unsuspecting patient will have no proper point of reference, no ability to distinguish a homœopath proper, from those simply and ignorantly laying claim to such title whilst actually practicing a separate and unconnected symbolopathy. [viii] We are already seeng a dramatic reduction in the numbers of students studying Homœopathy in Western countries as well as attendences to proper Homœopathic seminars  declining, also the patient numbers at many personal clinics appears to be reducing. We are loosing our core strength, as our foundation, the law of similars, is being eroded by these practices wrongly admitted under the banner of Homœopathy.

Had they bothered to study, not simply skim (assuming they must have at least sighted), the source literature, they could not have failed to realise that the single basis upon which similarity between drug and disease may be ascertained with certainty, is by comparing the known effects of a disease with the known effects of a substance determined by testing that substance, individually, upon the (relatively) healthy physiology. This data alone can form a basis of comparison with the data of disease.

I would invite others who may have similar views to express them herein, as I would like to know that we can re-form a new group of homoeopaths, eager to learn and to teach, by definition, and by example, what constitutes Homoeopathy proper, and to separate it from any pretended connection with such misteachings as described above.

George Dimitriadis

Mrs AM, 83 year old woman consulted me on 08-03 10. Her complaint had begun sixteen days earlier with difficulty swallowing due to oesophageal spasm and stomach pain. She associated the onset with eating a chicken salad following which, two days later, she was experiencing a great deal of GIT discomfort, and four days later she woke with constant nausea. The nausea was accompanied by a good deal of wind and burping, which relieved temporarily. She had a strong aversion to cold drinks, watery food and even thinking of fruit made her feel extremely nauseous. She had almost no appetite and could only eat a little before feeling full. Complaint accompanied by sleepiness, tending to drop off to sleep easily.

She herself felt better while sitting or lying and felt dizzy from moving her eyes sideways and needed to turn her head slowly in order to look to the side. Her legs also felt weak and she had a constant pain under her left lower rib.
Now even though this probably seems pretty straight forward and many could select a medicine without the repertory, simple clear cases such as this are helpful when it comes to demonstrating the TBR approach. I selected the following rubrics:

There was only one remedy which covered all the selected rubrics. Under Lycopodium in Hahnemann’s Chronic Diseases the following supporting symptoms are to be found:

523         She cannot eat at all, is always sated and without appetite, and when she eats anything she feels a loathing, even to vomiting.

544         Immediately after eating, the abdomen always feels full, distended and inflated till evening, while sitting, standing and lying; he has no pleasure in walking, and remains sitting.

570         Frequent empty eructation.

564         After meals, irresistible drowsiness

I prescribed Lyc 0/1 to be taken daily. The patient reported feeling better after the first dose. She continued the medicine for a week and then experienced a return of the troublesome digestive symptoms. On stopping the medicine she felt well and quite back to normal.

The patient returned to me on 19-07-10 (4 months later), with a strong return of old symptoms from her past. She had previously suffered debilitating rheumatic pain and ‘restless legs’ syndrome, for which she had been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and had undergone a controversial treatment of antibiotic therapy which, at the time, had ‘cured’ her rheumatoid arthritis – so she was now disappointed that the Lycopodium seemed to have caused a relapse. She had also a history of several falls and broken both hips, resulting in one replacement hip and the other being fitted with a pin and plate. Her main symptoms were now as follows:

Restless legs (usually right leg but could be either), at night, after 7pm, <while sitting. At times her leg would spasmodically, visibly jerk (kick). Lying down would initially relieve this but after 10 minutes would begin what she described as ‘a rhythmic drawing-up and relaxing’ of the muscles of her thigh  – this commenced with her toes turning upwards and then her affected leg would then actually bend at the knee and draw upwards on the bed and the movement would reverse as the muscles released. This would cease if she got up and walked around, or eventually when she fell asleep. AM also reported a parasthæsia of her lower limbs, originally only at toes, but now having gradually ascended to her knees and causing the affected parts to feel thick and heavy.

She needs to look straight forward when walking, is unable to look sideways without going off-balance and reported feeling unstable on turning.

She also reported a continuous right sided cervical headache, a pain in her right temple and a ‘fuzzy’ ‘off balance’ feel in right eye. Also reported difficulty finding words and remembering names.

Following this consult I prescribed Sepia 30 which only resulted a temporary lessening of the restlessness in the legs but most markedly in a return of the gastric symptoms, which were once again removed by Lyc 30.

On her visit on 1-10-10 she reported the same restless legs at night plus an increased weakness in her legs making it difficult to rise from a chair. Also difficulty walking down a slope, feels as if she might fall. At times could feel her heart beating hard, as well as a feeling as if she is going to faint,
beginning with an empty feeling in the chest. I re-repertorised her symptoms as follows:

N.B. I have grouped each symptom with its associated modality/ies. This allows a comparison of grading consistency across the case. We have found that grading consistency (ie. grades not varying by more than 1 point from each other for each symptom and their associated rubrics) provides a strong indication for the remedy choice.

Taking into account the unusual upward drawing sensation in her legs, as well as the gradually ascending paralysis, the only medicines to cover all the rubrics chosen were Mercurius and Veratrum. The latter is far more consistent across grades. The following symptoms from Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura, especially those relating to the legs, lend strong support for Veratrum.

495         When standing spasmodic drawing pain from the hough up into the right thigh.

503         Single, visible, high raising up of the knee when sitting (in the afternoon), once every quarter and half hour, without pains; he started every time it occurred; it ceased on lying down in the evening.

505         Pains in the legs, especially the knees, as from extreme weariness, as if large stones were fastened to them; in order to get relief he must lay them first in one place then in another.

509         Heavy pain in the legs as from fatigue.

510         A formication in the legs up to the knee, a painful swarming in them.

530         When walking he feels a clumsiness and heaviness in the feet and knees.

553         In the limbs a spasmodic drawing up over the joints.

558         Trembling in al the limbs, horrible cardiac anxiety, and tendency to syncopy.

I prescribed Verat 0/2 (only because I do not have 0/1 in stock) on 8-10-10.

She phoned me on 14-10-10 after taking Verat 0/2 daily for 6 days. The twitching, drawing and restlessness in her legs was gone and, although initially better, her back and limbs were now aching and tight and she was feeling extremely weak and having difficulty moving around. She was also complaining of an empty feeling in her stomach  which made want to eat.

Knowing this patient to be extremely sensitive and reactive to medicines, I suggested she stop and wait and phone me the following week.

She called again on 18-10-10 reporting the pain, aching and weakness to be very much better. The restlessness almost non-existent most nights and the digestive symptoms also better.

I suggested she continue the Verat 0/2 once a week.

11-03-11 Follow up I saw the patient in the local shopping centre last week and was surprised to see her maneuvering a shopping trolley around an uneven and sloped car park. Not an easy feat for anyone let alone a weak and unstable 83 year old. Difficult for me to believe she was the same woman.

She tells me she is OK and continues to take the occasional dose of Veratum if she feels the restless returning but is virtually free of her crippling arthritic aches and pains while occasionally, also needing the Lycopodium, when her gastric symptoms begin to resurface. She likes to be in control of her own dosage so I let her go, as her improvement is just so remarkable.

One thing interesting to note is that the modalities for the Lycopodium gastric symptoms are so much the opposite to Veratrum indications ie. desire warm food and drinks and aversion to fruit. Good example of two medicines complementing each other where indicated.

Invitation to TBR2 Users

I would like to invite practitioners using our TBR2 in clinic to publish their successful cases on our website (click on news) in order to demonstrate rubric selection and final choice of remedy. This will act as a basis for learning more about the use of TBR and also provide a way to learn from the clinical experiences of others.

Case from Jacqui Dimitriadis.

1.Two in One Acute.

A dilemma exists when we homoeopaths (single remedy prescribers) are faced with the situation where a patient is suffering with two entirely disparate complaints. Do we treat one at a time, do we possibly treat one with internal medication and the other topically (where applicable) or do we try to find a medicine to cover the whole picture? The following case is one where I chose the latter approach and even surprised myself with the result.

Alex, a 13 year old boy required treatment for an acute gastritis with nausea and vomiting (probably due to food poisoning from chicken nuggets.) The complaint had begun with violent hiccups and gastric spasms followed by waking after short sleep with vomiting of food last eaten. The nausea then continued without subsequent vomiting the following day. Meanwhile, causing him equal discomfort, was a strained hip flexor muscle of the left leg, which resulted in pain and a feeling of weakness in the thigh on any weight bearing movement. His hip pain was worse when bending the leg even slightly from the hip (especially on lateral rotation), and worse on walking or climbing up or down stairs. He appeared to be guarding his upper leg to prevent any sudden movement. Alex clearly wanted relief from both seemingly unrelated complaints. So I decided to try to find a medicine covering both sets of symptoms.
I selected the following rubrics from TBR2: (Click on picture to enlarge)

The medicine which best covers all these rubrics, with consistency in the grades, is Bryonia. In Bryonia in Hahnemann’s MMP we read the following description:

276   Immediately after midnight he wakes with nausea; he must vomit food and bile.

277   She has rising of food which comes into the mouth by a kind of belching.

278   Eructation of the contents of the stomach, with hardly any effort to vomit.

279   After eating food that he relished sickness and loathing.

253   Frequent eructation of nothing but air.

254   After eructation hiccup, without having previously taken any food.

255   After eructation hiccup for a quarter of an hour (aft. 48h).

256   Violent hiccup.

521   Unsteadiness in the thighs and legs, and staggering when going downstairs (aft. 20h).

522   Tearing pain in the right thigh when moving. [FrH]

523   Great weakness in the thighs; he can hardly go upstairs; less when going downstairs. [

I gave Bry 30(L) 4 hourly for 3 doses then twice a day for 2 days. The improvement in the gastric symptoms was immediate, the nausea lessening within 10 minutes of taking medicine and completely gone in one hour. Alex was also able to walk and move more freely within one hour of taking the Bryonia, though his movements were still restricted until the following day. 24 hours after beginning the Bryonia he was back to his normal range of movement, including acrobatics and dance.

“It is by balancing the concomitant symptoms whether good or bad, that one is to form a prognosis; for thus it will most probably prove to be a true one.”

Hahnemann repeated this position, even in his Versuch… of 1796, and Bonninghausen emphasised it over and over in his various writings, including his “Aphorisms of Hippocrates” (BAH).

George Dimitriadis

_________________

First email from George Dimitriadis on 20 January 2011

Centre for Inquiry Vancouver
Ethan Clow, Spokesperson,

Dear Sir,

Could you please provide the specific details, objectives, design, materials, controls, of the CFI experiment stated as having “…demonstrated the flaws of homeopathy …”.  I am a practicing homœopathic consultant, a medical sciences graduate from the University of NSW (in Sydney), and very familiar with the requirements of ‘scientificity’. Given my nearly 30 years of experience in this field, and my own demand for scientific rigor and evidence-based conclusions, I find it incredible to hear that CFI representatives could so quickly determine a position on this matter which is diametrically opposed to my own position set after such experience. The only conclusion I can imagine is that CFI representatives held a pre-position, a bias, with respect to this topic, and then set about to convince others of their pre-formed view. This is NOT science.  I therefore wish to examine your experiment, in detail, so that I can point out the flaws which I have no doubt will be obvious to any completely objective, non-prepositioned, review. I look forward to receiving your reply, along with the details requested.

Dr. George Dimitriadis, Director, Hahnemann Institute Sydney Australia

_________________

Reply from Ethan Clow, 19th January 2011

Dear Sir,

Thank you for ably pointing out how poor the science behind our demonstration was. As you so rightly note, it is not a true scientific experiment. There is no blinding, there were no controls, it was a small sample size, and the effects were not measured adequately. Also, as you note, the people conducting the experiment had a conclusion that was formed before the experiment – seeking to prove a point rather than test a claim. Considering that this is the standard of “evidence” that is used by homeopathy supporters to show that it works, I am glad to see that you are willing to join us in pointing out how poor the quality of science supporting such claims is. Please provide us with just a couple of examples of the surely hundreds of well-designed, blinded and controlled rigorous scientific studies that you use to support your practice.
Ethan Clow, Executive Director, Centre for Inquiry Vancouver, eclow@cficanada.ca

__________________________

Reply to Ethan Clow by G. Dimitriadis, 20th January 2011

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your reply and for acknowledging your misrepresentation of such antics (for I cannot call them otherwise) designed by your group and proposed as evidencing the implausibility (as you have already determined it without proper study) of Homœopathy.

Firstly, I believe any objective observer would agree it is inappropriate to offer such ‘proofs’ of your (pre-) position when you admit they are as unscientific as the claims you seek to ridicule. On the one hand, those homœopaths may be guilty, at worst, of misrepresentation borne of ignorance, yet on the other hand CFI sought to misrepresent, purposefully, their antics as proofs of their position, misrepresented as itself scientific. Our audience shall be the judge of which is the greater misconduct.

Secondly, you will understand that my purpose is not to teach or convince you of anything. To be clear, you possess no standing, display no knowledge, and warrant no attention in the field of Homœopathy, and through your own admittedly unscientific antics, deserve the reproof of scientists and true skeptics.

Irrespective, facts are facts independent of what you believe. Should we seek now to examine “science”, which term, although from the Latin (Scientia) for knowledge, actually stands for something different. For who cannot understand, even on a cursory consideration, that knowledge is developed and possessed in many pursuits which are yet not sciences (farming, boxing, surfing, writing, tree-felling, etc.). Science, in fact, represents not knowledge, but a methodological approach to discovery, which method demands, in the modern scientific (post-Baconian) era, four conditions be met, namely: induction, deduction, prediction, testing. Science demands nothing of comprehension (albeit that is a bonus when possible) and you should be aware of the thousands of accepted observations which are simply inexplicable – might I remind you that the force of attraction between two bodies of mass (Gravity) is itself inexplicable, yet this poses no problem in its general acceptance (the graviton has not been found, even though billions have been spent in looking over many years) and the observation may be used and applied, reproduced, even though not comprehended. That you cannot comprehend Homœopathy makes it no less an observable phænomenon.

But let me also remind you of something your organisation, as a self-proclaimed learned scientific body, surely already know, and that it that the basic requisites of “science” are often dismissed or ignored by scientists. Or are you not aware that Newton’s First Law of Motion is itself untestable, and therefore fails this basic requirement; and did you not already realise that whilst science demands reproducibility, modern quantum mechanics teaches that the observer has a profound influence on the observation itself, which can therefore never be precisely replicated. How many times must a person die for that death to be considered a fact? How many people must observe it? How many did it take to conceive and propose relativity theory? It is not the quantity, but the quality of an observation which is vital to any hint at truth – for how many people held the earth was flat? Of these things you, as ‘skeptics’ (and I use this term politely, as it is not borne of evidence presented to me so far) should be intimately familiar.

How many examples may be recruited here to point out that science, as it stands today, accepts mostly what seems reasonable, and sets about to prove the postulate correct, to verify, in complete contra-distinction to the accepted post-Baconian modern scientific induction model. Such is modern science, in practice, that it itself fails many basic parameters of scientificity. Therefrom we can see the impropriety of ‘scientists’ seeking to discredit and ridicule something of which they are ignorant and unstudied, based on hearsay and first impressions – precisely what your group has demonstrated. You have done discredit to science, with which I have a strong commitment, and betrayed your bias.

In the end, it must be clearly comprehended that science is not about truth, but about useful predictability, and the most important requirement, in direct opposition to the schools of sophistry and pure logic, is to put things to the test, without pre-determination. And you have the audacity in your reply to dictate conditions of ‘blinding’ and ‘rigour’, which same conditions your CFI readily dismissed in their recent staged antics now admittedly unscientific and worthless.

Now, for the sake of those who would read these words in answer to your own comments, I add the following brief commentary on Homœopathy:

Firstly, much of what is represented as Homœopathy is largely completely unrelated, except by way of a claim to title, with Homœopathy proper. From this, we cannot expect favour from those unlearned in the field (as CFI), who rightly question the often absurd statements of ‘homœopaths’ (and I use this term loosely) – there is overwhelming evidence that as much harm issues from their own ignorance and pre-positioning as from those outside our profession seeking to attack in ignorance.

Yet, you are supposedly, skeptics, which term, from the Greek (skepsis), means thought. From this we must expect you to think, to ponder, to consider, and this requires you undertake a reasonable and objective evaluation of the field you seek to investigate and evaluate. It is not difficult to accept that we can have confidence in astronomy (the pursuit), but not necessarily astronomers (the pursuers); physics not physicists; engineering not engineers, medicine not doctors, etc. The same is true of Homœopathy, as it is of skepticism and self-proclaimed skeptics (I do not believe there is anywhere offered an undergraduate degree in skepticism (e.g. B.Skept.?).

What I expect is that you do not believe. I expect only you consider, weigh the evidence, and seek to falsify. The way of science, since the inductive model of Bacon, is falsifiability testing. I expect you know this, even though you evidence ignorance from the antics your group designed and employed the other day.

Now, it is reasonable and well known to any researcher, that the first requirement of any undertaking is to collect evidence from what has been written beforehand – to study the information to date – thoroughly. It is known the best way to do this is historically, not with reference to the most vociferous and prolific expressions available freely on the internet for anyone of a cursory mind disposed to ready conclusion to misunderstand and even accept as true, especially when it suits their pre-formed opinion (as with your CFI), but with reference to germinal or formative literature, abundantly available. I would expect a thorough seeking and study of the original source material, pushing aside the acquired pre-conceptions in favour of objectivity. I would expect you to understand the materials and methods of these original experiments, and seek to falsify by replication of the precise experiment – not merely dispel by spurious argument and logic (let me remind you gravity is not logical, it is merely factual). This is not an easy task for anyone who has undertaken it, for it is far easier to learn than to unlearn.

This is precisely what CFI have not done, else you would have found many similar antics as yours, and the answers from thousands of well educated physicians, physicists, educated men of various scientific disciplines, etc., and from that, you would have, perhaps, if objectivity was allowed to present itself against the tide of bias, comprehend the history, development, and definition of what constitutes Homœopathy proper. I should provide the following quotation, from Samuel Hahnemann, founder of this system of medicine (1827 – perhaps you will find the specific reference for yourself, or your entire group of learned skeptics?):

“If a drop of such highly attenuated medicine,” so they talk, “can still act, then the water of the lake of Geneva, into which a drop of some strong medicine has fallen, must display as much curative power in each of its separate drops, indeed much more, seeing that in the homœopathic attenuations a much greater proportion of attenuating fluid is used.”

Does this sound familiar? And yet you are simply unread and unaware of such things, otherwise you would surely have drawn upon them, and many other similar ones, in support of your own position. With comprehension, you could yourself design a proper test or experiment, one which would satisfy every scientific requirement, and then see the outcome, which must surely be acceptable to all on-lookers trained in objectivity.

In short, you confound Homœopathy with ultra-dilute or infinitesimal doses, even though the title itself has no connection with dose. Had your Greek been even rudimentary, then perhaps you would have realised your basic misunderstanding, instead of trusting in the hearsay of other sources, themselves equally unlearned in this area.

What is clear, however, from this play-acting of CFI representatives, is that their bias outweighs their objectivity, and their foolishness is more evident than their skepsis, and from this, I take the liberty of pronouncing them askeptics.

If you can bear all this annoyance, rightly deserved from your admitted ascientific irresponsibility in action and misrepresentation, and if you would admit publically your actions as such (before I make these correspondences available), and if, subsequently, you desire to investigate the matter properly, without ridicule, without expectation of a determination along a pre-formed path, then, perhaps, I would be inclined to offer my assistance in such endeavour, so that you may at least understand the matter before you seek to offer any opinion or pronouncement as to its scientificity (or lack of).

Sincerely and with certainty,

Dr. George Dimitriadis, Homœopathic consultant, Director Hahnemann Institute Sydney