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...)
if a patient were to come to me with Sjogrens as the main presenting symptoms i would address that as the main condition, and the person's personality would not come into my reckoning - though i would include changes in the mood and mind that had occurred since the onset of symptoms, if any. also i would not take into account pre-existing conditions at this stage.
for each of the presenting main symptoms of that individual patient, i would look up the relevant remedies and put together a symptom group. this is only possible with the Boenninghausen repertory and it is more of a job than using the modern repertories, and not widely used unfortunately.
even then, it is possible that one remedy alone would not cover all the symptoms, in which case i would consider the most troubling and most recent symptoms to be addressed by the first remedy.
in this way i work with a patient through the main symptoms, and it might take several remedies in correct sequence before there is cure, but all the time there should be gradual improvement.
In accordance with Hahnemann's teaching on the treatment of chronic diseases, i do not find that one remedy remains 'the similimum' throughout treatment in most chronic cases.
if the person were to want to go on with homoeopathic treatment long-term after the cure of Sjogrens, then this would likely require another complex series of similima in correct sequence, each selected with attention to detail of the changing symptom picture.
so, to conclude on that, i would not expect one remedy to cover all your case, and in that your case is very normal.
there is a way to practice homoeopathy that is neither the french materialist quasi-allopathic way, nor the Kentian quest for the one similimum panacea, and that is Hahnemann's way.
JLNB, you come across as annoyed with the answer, but what i wrote is a fact.
allopathic medicine prescribes by disease name, homoeopathy does not. in this way i do disagree with murphy's chapter on diseases as a chapter in a repertory. diseases are not the same as symptoms, and the place for them is not in a repertory, rather in a book of therapeutics where the characteristics of each remedy in the context of each disease can be elaborated.
if there were such a thing, what you need is a chapter of homoeopathic therapeutics on Sjogrens.
In your quest you might come across one particular remedy that is said to be specific for Sjogrens, but i strongly advise against taking it
because homoeopathy, like any other effective therapy, can be dangerously suppressive if practiced superficially.
what is genuinely helpful about homoeopathy is the careful fitting of a remedy prescription to the presenting symptoms, so you might need one of many remedies to start a case of this kind, and several others, as indicated, to see it through to cure.
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.
thanks dr leela for your post which made me realise another area in which my practice differs from what i was taught at college.
like you i would regard clear modalities as important in such a case, but also i would not ignore the main 'common symptoms' of a given disease when seeking a similimum. eg. i would include in my repertorisation for this condition the dryness as a key factor - choosing a remedy that has dryness as a characteristic. this is because it is a main troubling symptom that i would want to be covered by the remedy, so that i could expect the remedy to have an effect on that symptom.
if you think about this logically, take for example jahr's book on homoeopathic therapeutics. all the remedies listed for certain medical condtions are remedies whose characteristic symptoms include those of the common symptoms of the condtion.
in fact a book of homoeopathic therapeutics would be an *impossible concept* if one were to ignore all the common symtptoms of a given disease when selecting a remedy to suit it.
to repeat, i do understand where you are coming from, because i was taught the same thing at college, but as i now see it, it is cleary wrong teaching.
JLNB, i understand what you mean about making hom into a religion. the reason it can seem like that is because hahnemann's work was so well-thought out and explained at every stage logically. so when we base our work on those principles we have confidence the prescribing will be effective, because we have laws of nature, as observed by hahnemann, showing why it is so. hahnemann, as a scientist, observed natural laws and set down a method of working with them.
subsequent homoeopaths, notably dr kent, brought in various kinds of speculation, and his teaching and practice are often contradictory. his work is not a sure building block on which the next generation of homoeopaths can stand.
what i percieve is that as homoeopathy has been 'developed' historically it has become more speculative and less scientific,and it is only by returning to the original texts we can work out what we do and why. working according to hahnemann and boenninghausen means that every prescription that goes out has a clear rationale, and one is not speculating about the effect, for example, of the person's character on their disease symptoms.
hope these ideas might be helpful, or at least thought-provoking.