If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Your reply makes perfect sense. But what about a homeopathic remedy that deals with the local symptoms (dry mucous membranes) in addition to the constitutional remedy?
Maybe this suggestion could be considered "blasphemous" by a Unicist homeopath, but it would be the approach followed by a French MD Homeopath.
What is your input on this point?
I also know that trying to match a syndrome (or set of symptoms) to a group of homeopathic remedies would again be "blasphemy" to a Unicist, but it could help to find that constitutional remedy you are suggesting to look for.
Robin Murphy, ND Homeopathic Remedy Guide (2nd E) has a handy Disease section, but unfortunately he doesn't list Sjögren's syndrome. I wondered if you knew of any other modern Repertory that could list it.
Sorry to hear that you didn't get it right! Glad you weren't a judge and me a defendant...
Were I looking for an Allopathic treatment for the Sjögren's syndrome, I wouldn't have posted my question in this forum. As a matter of fact, there are quite a few allopathic treatments for this syndrome.
So, author Robin Murphy has got it wrong too, just because his "Homeopathic Remedy Guide" has a chapter on Diseases?
As a matter of fact, you haven't answered my original question: What does Homeopathy has to offer to people with the Sjögren's Syndrome?
Can you offer any thoughts other than dogmatically condemn me? Is there any hope for an open minded interchange of ideas on how Homeopathy can help sufferers of the Sjögren's syndrome?
I'm not familiar with this syndrome, maybe you could describe it for me.
It's the strangest thing the way people are stressed out over Murphy adding a disease chapter to his repertory. All/most of these diseases are in Kent's, etc. repertory, but difficult to find--as they're not all in one place. Murphy's repertory is a God-send as he has gone out of his way to make finding what you're looking for as easy as possible by adding many new chapters, such as Emergency, Children, Headaches, Pregnancy, etc., eliminating archaic language, and putting everything in alphabetical order.
In reply to your question, Dryness of Mucous membranes (in the eye, mouth) in Sjogren's Syndrome is part of a consitutional response in this disease and is not an isolated problem.
Yes there are situations where one may prescribe a locally acting, specific remedy along with the consitutional. BUt this is not not of them. I do however advise patients to use artificial tears esp to avoid ulceration and other problems due to the dryness in the eyes and glycerine for the mouth. This is a supplement and not allopathic or homeopathic.
What we are dealing with in Sjogren's symdrome is a general imbalance of the Immune system, that needs to be corrected, adn local remedies will never have any effect on that and produce any response locally. So the earlier the consitutional similimum is started the better. And then, a lot of patience too is required!
I'm not too sure what you meant by "Unicist" do you meant someone who prescribes only one remedy?
I looked up your disease and I see it's an auto- immune disease where the white blood cells invade the glands that create secretions, thereby causing dry mouth, dry eyes, etc.
Oddly enough, in homeopathy, looking up the common symptoms--like dry mouth--in the repertory wouldn't help us find your remedy. We would need to know how you have this disease differently than the others who have it. For instance, if you had this disease and were thirstless, despite having dry mouth, that would be very telling, and we would say, his remedy has to be in this rubric:
If you could read through the other posts on the bulletin board and get an idea of the kind of information we look for and post it here, we might be able to help you.
Somehow, Snoopy is the the only one who clearly understood my point. The name of a disease is the label of a collection of symptoms that characterizes the way a pathology is experienced by most of those affected by it. So, it is good for the Homeopaths to have Repertories listing those remedies that worked for most of the people sharing most of the symptoms of a particular disease.
This doesn't mean that I am wrongly trying to "cure" only based on the symptoms shared by most of the sufferers (based on the name of the disease only), like most of you think. It means, that it could help to resolve the pathology and symptomatology, by starting to address the core of common symtoms (captured in the disease name), and continuing adressing the constitutional flaws of the individual.
Concerning the prescription of constitutional remedies, I find it almost impossible to find one that suits the whole person. The reason, as you all know, is that most of our constitutional symptomatology is being suppressed by our lifestyle, environment, diet, allopathic medication, etc.
Therefore, when I start the daunting task of matching a person's symptomatology with the wealth of information found in the Repertory and Materia Medica, I never find a remedy that truly matches the essence, image, or even most of the local symptoms of the homeopathic remedy. So, for me hunting for the constituional remedy is a desirable but unattainable goal.
The reason why I posted my original question is because I wanted to point out that too frequently it is said "look for the constitutional remedy" and it is quite difficult finding it in today's SUPPRESSING world, we are living in.
Wouldn't it make sense addressing the local symptoms of the person, until the Unique constitutional remedy pops up, if ever? Or let me put it in a different way, what do you do in your practice if a Sjögren's syndrome sufferer comes to you for help, and he only has local symptoms?
Or, would you say that my remedy is not homeopathic because it is not addressing all the individual symptoms? If so,I have news for you because that is one of the approaches successfully used by French MD homeopaths.
By the way, till now I has never been able to match 100% of the remedy symptoms to the person's symptoms. Maybe the fault is at home!
Thanks a lot to you all for your insightful remarks, comments, and leads. A warm hello to Anna B. (your first reply really scared me; I thought that the Inquisition was a Spanish thing...)
YOu are so pleasant and insightful yourself, I'm wondering why you needed so much advise!
Well my personal experience has been that one does try to match the picture one percieves witt a closely corresponding remedy. ITs the similimum for the time. One may discover this similimum through a variety of means, physical generals, PQRS symptoms of the disease picture, Mental characteristics, any way one percieves the window.
Knowing the diagnosis of Sjogren's syndrom allows one to filter out "common" symptoms that one would (in ignorance) otherwise give high importance to in repertorization. Hence even if Dryness of mucous membranes is a marked symptom in the patient, I would not give importance to it. BUt if this symptoms is relieved by warm applications and is better at night, I would consider that factor important.
I think it would be too perfectionist to expect us to find the Exact similimum everytime. I agree with you about various suppressions altering pictures and slowly layers coming off with successive remedies, as we go deeper. But this too could be individual to each case. For me starting points are the CAUSATIONS. IF this fits with the past history symptom picture, there is probably 1 remedy. But if the causation seems like a recent alteration in constitution, there are going to be successive remedies.
Homeopathy was never an easy science. And one should try not to get too fixed on any one method of remedy selection or therapeutic process. Each case needs to be taken at its own merit, whether Hahnemannian, Kentian, Boger Boenninghausen, Modern (!), etc.
Glad to count with your useful insight, and thanks your it.
As a Naturopath, Homeopathy is the Therapy that I cherish the most. However, it is very dissapointing the lack of professional rigor and sometimes complaisant ignorance of too many so called professional Homeopaths.
I have a lengthy professional experience as a researcher in Molecular Biology and this has exposed me to many exhiting scientitic disciplines. So, I find if quite difficult to understand the current state of development of Homeopathy as a Therapy. I know of no other Science or Art, where the founder is considered the ultimate authority on the craft; with the exception of Religions.
Yes, the great Master Hahnemann was a genious and his merits should always be considered. But let's move on.
Nobody, in Molecular Biology reveres Dr. Watson or Dr. Crick just because the unveiled the structure of the DNA. Every single day in every corner of the world, a person is making a very significant contribution to the advancement of any discipline in Science or in the Arts. And you know, big deal! Because it is part of the humnan advancement process.
So please, Homeopaths keep moving on, write insightful books, base your observations on the scientific methodology, create a body of knowledge worth of passing on to future generations.
As I said, I cherish Homeopathy and officially I will be a Homeopath by the middle of next year. But, I will never stop in challenging my fellow Homeopaths with provoking questions and thought whereever and whenever I find it right.
But the doers of all this, are people like you willing to share ideas, thoughts, experiences, and the most valuable item TIME!
For all this thank you. I hope to capture your interest in future posts.
Thank you for your post. I do agree with using Dryness as something the remedy should cover. Above, I meant it as a PQRS in a "three legged stool" as suggested by Allen. But in my remedy differentiation, yes I think Dryness of Mucous membranes should be one of the aspects to consider.
I appreciate you sharing your experience.
If I got right your latest point, what makes Hahnemann so valid today is his methodology.
Maybe I am wrong, but the success of Hahnemann' methodology is based on at least one important premise: the careful observation of the evolution in the patient's symptomatology, one the first test dose is given.
When a patient comes to your practice he or she expects a prescription that will fix the problem, the sooner the better. So, how do you keep tract of your patients symptomatology evolution, when: a)let's say you are dealing with 15 cases at once, b)you have to treat new patients, and c)you have a live to care about too?
Why do you think that the MDs use drugs and surgery to treat medical conditions? Because, IN THEORY they provide INSTANT relieve, and most importantly, THEY CAN MANAGE IT EASILY!
I guess this is the rationale behind, the German Pharmaceutical Companies approach of mixing a zilion of homeopathic remedies and selling it as a single HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY.
My point is: In which way can Hahneman's methodological approach evolve to meet today's patient's needs and expectations?
Right now, I have in front of me two editions of the Merck Manual: The seventeeth edition and the first edition. And you know what, I welcome the evolution to the better.
This is the reason why I welcome all well researched new Repertories and Materia Medicas. But what about methodology evolution? Why so much fear to adapt Homeopathy to our times?
Have you noticed that most of the questions in this web forum are repeated over and over again?
And we both know why. Because there is no clear cut and world-wide accepted Homeopathic Methodology.
So, do we want to do something to change it?
From reading the posts in this forum, I can tell that they are many bright minds. What I don't understand is why they keep repeating the same words pronounced by past generations of Homeopaths!
Doesn't Homeopathy and Hahnemann deserve a little more effort on those who call themselves Homeopaths?
I think it is worth keeping Homeopathy alive. This is women's Century, so where is our champion leading-woman in Homeopathy?
I believe we're all "saying the same old thing" in homeopathy because homeopathy is an exact science. If you practice it as it is advocated by Hahnemann, you will get curative results. Every time. No exceptions to the rule.
So, why tamper with a successful, reliable formula?
Are you holding on to the mistaken belief that we women are just following the teachings of a man?
Well...consider this: that man was enabled in his discoveries by the financing and encouragement and research of a woman. Melanie worked right alongside of Sam in Paris--providing him with a space to practice, support in terms of money, a home, food, etc. etc., and learning how to practice herself. It was during this time of his life--where he was supported by Melanie's money and efforts--that he discovered what would be the 6th edition revisions to the Organon.
And let's not forget the contribution of many, many women who practiced as homeopaths, opened schools of homeopathic medicine and homeopathic hospitals, as a result of Hahnemann's work. As for challenging Hahnemann, pushing the envelope on his work, continuing the growth of homeopathy--well, that's what Hahnemann would have wanted.
The basics, however, are the basics. The Law of Similars, the minimum dose, individualizing every case, using only one remedy at a time, and avoiding suppression at all costs--these rules make homeopathy an exact science. Simple as that.
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine
Anna, I have good news for you, there is a genius inside each of us. So, no excuses for not leading others.
Divina, there was no intentional sexism in my comments; it makes no sense here and it is outdated.
Since two women, Anna and Doctorleela, have been strong enough to endure my questioning on the Sjögren's syndrome, it made perfect sense to try to allure them to critically review the current body of knowledge on Homeopathy.
After screening the writings of some contemporary Homeopaths I do see much of the same obscure stuff BLA BLA BLA(I am afraid that I am goint to pay dearly for this comment...). And very few homeopaths are critically reviewing the inherited body of knowledge on Homeopathy.
Among the few ones that are changing for the better contemporary Homeopaths minds is André Saine, (N.D., D.H.A.N.P.)
Why? Because although he is a 100% Hahnemannian Homeopath (appologies if Hahnemannian doesn't exist),he is still honest enough to challenge the usefullness of the LM potencies and openly questions the verifiability of Hering's Laws of Cure.
Is he a genius? Maybe yes, maybe no. Although he is simply SHARING his personal observations with his patients, even though that means disagreeing with some prominent homeopaths.
And this is precisely what I am asking for.
Why women? Many reasons. There are more women than men and they outlive us. Women are more intuitive, inquisitive. And as long as women don't fall under the spell of dogmatism, there is still hope for Homeopathy.
But if Anna says that her craft works fine for her, I believe her and feel better.
Now seriously. If a student of Chemistry, Biology, Pathology, IT, Engineering, etc. wants to know about her subject, she goes to a library buys a book and has the assurance that what she has got is valid and accepted all over the world.
BUT if a Hoemopath wants to improve her craft...
Is it sunny in the UK today?
It is sunny and hot here in Spain.