No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Blepharitis


    Does anyone have any recommendations on easing the irritations caused by Blepharitis (itching of eyelids)?


  • #2
    Try sulphur 30C.



    • #3
      To prescribe on a single symptom is forbidden in Homeopathy. Please have your case properly assessed. It needs to be determined if this is an acute (doubtful) or a chronic case. And a Homeopath would need more information than just one single symptom to properly prescribe, otherwise it leads to suppression which is not good. Prescribing on a single symptom is not homeopathy or homeopathic - it is the same as allopathic prescribing.
      Good luck.


      • #4
        If you want to give us more information, go to the topic, "Questionnaire" and answer the questions pertaining to the chief complaint.



        • #5
          I have no idea if prescribing on a single symptom is forbidden in homeopathy but have had situations where there was only one symptom to use. For example a friend called late one night that her cat was leaking what appeared clear, plain water from the anus. Told her to use Apis. Condition stopped very quickly. Cat otherwise had no apparent (to caregiver, though I would think the condition was due to a chronic disease) symptoms. Besides, it was the middle of the night and long case taking wasn't something I wanted to do nor would the caregiver been interested in a long session! This was well over 2 years ago and cat remains in very good health with no seeming residual effects (and no recurrences) of having prescribed on one symptom. It is necessary, or should I say, unavoidable, to prescribe on one symptom when dealing in the moment with animals and wildlife for whom you have no history or background.
          Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.


          • #6
            Dear gpm,

            Austin says there was only one symptom, actually there were two. One was the inflamation, two was the itching. It would have been better if we could have known what made it better or worse. Maybe Sheilanne will get back to us and tell us what happened. But, I know what you mean. There are times when you're just not going to get a complete case for one reason or another, and we can't live in fear of homeopathy and prescribe nothing when the obvious remedy may have helped.
            It's like not giving Arnica because you don't have a complete case, all you know is that someone was injured. Or maybe all you know is that someone has food poisoning, so you say try Arsenicum, and you have no idea if it's going to work, but I can't imagine being such a perfectionist that I wouldn't prescribe and at least give the patient a shot at recovering. And, you know, if it doesn't work, you just try the next most likely remedy, it's not the end of the world.



            • #7
              Sure, complete and thorough case taking is the proper way but if a quick question is asked and it is pretty certain a remedy stands out as the most likely to relieve and the questioner hasn't presented additional information, even seems disinclined to go into detail, I see no harm in suggesting a remedy based on the single question asked. Providing it isn't something terribly more serious than itching eyelids! It isn't uncommon for many people to pull away if you begin "taking a case". What I have seen happen many times is that a person just wants an You can go into a long diatribe about the whole picture, they won't put the effort into it. It seems to us they should want to and be happy to do so but the vast majority of people are not accustomed to being that involved and have no idea what on earth difference it makes if they prefer red over green. About the most you can hope for in such cases is the color of the discharge or something like that. At least the people who post questions on the BB have enough knowledge to have gotten this far. Whole bunches of people out there that have never heard of homeopathy.

              The upside of suggesting without a lot of case taking (preferably for a non-life threatening situation!) is those who have been helped may be sparked to learn a little more, eventually understanding the need to participate and become good homeopathic patients. It's easier with animals, generally. People will put more effort into it if asked questions or require history, etc. A lot of people seek homeopathic care for themselves after first having seen results with a pet. I'm sure the same goes for other therapies like acupuncture. My cats and horses were acupunctured before I ever was. (Their acupuncturist was far superior to mine!) They have been to chiropractors, I haven't. I know this to be the case as I've seen it first hand. Give the caregiver's hip dysplasia dog Rhus Tox or Bry, they see the improvement and even though they've never heard of homeopathy before, they become interested (amazed) and consequently make appointments with a real homeopath. Another recent event was a dog diagnosed with bone cancer. She was about immobile and could barely breathe, vet advice was amputate or euthanasia. I gave her a few remedies, the dog so improved that the caregiver also made an appointment with a homeopath. Neither of these recent cases would have ever sought out homeopathy, would not have given me anything resembling a *full case* (sincerely, not to imply I would have known what to do had they) and I used a few simple, ordinary/common symptoms to prescribe. When there was improvement, I told them that if I could help them, just think what a real homeopath might do. Now these folks not only have their pets but themselves visiting a homeopath.

              Sometimes the path between two points isn't a straight line.
              Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.


              • #8

                The essence of true homoeopathic healing means the true source of the problem needs to be treated. If you don't take a full case, how do you know what it is and who it is you are treating. A full case may take 3 minutes or it may take 1 hour to 2 days to understand. Like it or not, tiresome as it may be to read, in Chronic Diseases Hahnemann states the real cause of many (non-venereal) ailments to be of psoric origin. He came to this conclusion after noting how some acute ailments and reoccuring chronic ailments were not able to be permanently removed by the application of well-chosen homoeopathic medicines. This is why he dug a lot deeper and developed his list of anti-psoric homoeopathic medicines that were specifically aimed at permanently, rapidly and gently curing these reoccuring conditions.

                In the first few early editions of the Organon the emphasis is on treating by symptom similarity alone. In the last 2 editions of the Organon Hahnemann had taken homoeopathic cure to new levels by careful investigation of the miasmatic nature of chronic diseases. Following these teachings - which is the duty of all homoeopaths - means that conditions are not suppressed, that other organ systems are not compromised, that the integrity of the Vital Force is not compromised, and that any new symptoms occuring after the supposed cure of a local ailment are not just seen as some non-related disease that happened out of nowhere. Hahnemann lists in some 15 pages in Chronic Diseases the connection between the suppression of 'itch' and secondary major illnesses.

                It is not our jobs to deliver quick fixes. It is our jobs to pursue true homoeopathic healing to the best of our ability. When rapid cures occur, we're not surprised, when they don't occur as quickly as we'd like it simply means the true nature of the ailment requires more investigation. Why should we involve ourselves with superficial treatments and deny the real potential of homoeopathic cure by substandard case-taking, and substandard prescriptions?



                • #9
                  This was not an emergency situation where something needed to be given NOW. No, it's not the end of the world, but it's also not our body and we don't have to live with the consequences should they go seriously awry either, do we.

                  gpm, in the Organon Hahnemann talks about allopathic versus homeopathic prescribing - and how the allopaths prescribe on disease names (single symptoms) - to put it roughly - and how harmful it was. I don't disagree with much of what you said - sometimes there isn't time when there is an emergency and we hope we know enough Materia Medica in our heads to be able to think of what is really needed.....and we hope that it doesn't cause any harm. But why take shortcuts and risk harming anyone when it is obvious there isn't a pressing urgency to take something NOW? Or do you think it's really okay to resort to the pressure when patients demand a quick fix (I'm not saying this patient demanded a quick fix....this isn't my point). Here is what Hahnemann says (it is not the only place in the Org where he talks about this):

                  7 footnote 4
                  In all times, the old school physicians, not knowing how else to give relief, have sought to combat and if possible to suppress by medicines, here and there, a single symptom from among a number in diseases-a one-sided procedure, which, under the name of symptomatic treatment, has justly excited the universal contempt, because by it, not only was nothing gained, but much harm was inflicted. A single one of the symptoms present is no more the disease itself than a single foot is the man himself. This procedure was so much the more reprehensible, that such a single symptom was only treated by an antagonistic remedy (therefore only in an enantiopathic and palliative manner), whereby, after a slight alleviation, it was subsequently only rendered all the worse.
                  The same kind of prescribing can happen, and unfortunately does happen, with Homeopathic remedies that are not applied homeopathically (therefore they are not homeopathic to the case..therefore one is not practising homeopathy...therefore.....).

                  In other words, homeopathically prepared remedies are only homeopathic to a case when applied homeopathically. Just because a remedy is homeopathically prepared does not mean it cannot be used allopathically (suppressively). Hahenmann talks about this throughout the Org - beginning with 23 - around 59 covers all this, if you're interested to read up on why I felt it was important to post in the first place.

                  If remedies are used to 'give some relief' on a single symptom, yes yes yes it can most certainly be harmful. Unless one is just lucky. Why try luck? [I guess this could be another thread: whether or not remedies can be harmful -- some people claim remedies are not harmful and some say they are. Someone said -was it Hahnemann?-somewhere "that which can heal can also harm" Does anyone remember who said this?]

                  Using Sulph for one or two symptoms without knowing anything else about this patient is allopathic prescribing. What else would it be?

                  Even knowing what made the two symptoms better or worse would not ensure this would be a homeopathic prescription. We have to do the work if we are going to prescribe don't we? This isn't an opinion. It's a matter of being responsible the way I see it.
                  Chris has covered deeper [excellent] reasons which support why we shouldn't prescribe like this.

                  So, no, we can't just prescribe on one or two symptoms to 'give relief'. It's irresponsible when we could take more initiative to do it properly, and it is possibly very harmful, gpm. There are many remedies which contain itching eyes and simply put, we need to know more information or we increase the risk of harm to any patient. Do you now understand why I posted?

                  No matter who posted Sulph - I would have said the same thing. So Snoopy, I hope you keep your cheery dispositon and sense of humour - it wasn't personal.

                  [ 03. November 2002, 06:05: Message edited by: Austin Powers ]


                  • #10
                    Just to get right back to the original post Euphrasia Mother Tincture diluted 1 drop to 10 mls of cold boiled water really does soothe itching eyes !!!! Always the first line of treatment.
                    RSHom - Registered Homeopath


                    • #11
                      Austin Powers,

                      Thank you for making such an effort to explain at length the dangers of incorrect prescribing and advising me how it should be done. You haven't been on the BB very long and may not understand that I'm not talking about cases taken without time constraints by practicing homeopaths. I was just trying to explain how it sometimes happens that someone in my position hasn't any more than one symptom to guide in a remedy decision. I didn't mean to imply it was the right way, not trying to critique anyone else's method, just talking about my own personal experiences. I also hadn't intended to imply that this is an ideal situation nor did I intend to imply that my knowledge of homeopathy was such that I thought this is how good homeopathy is practiced. (I did say in my last post that I send people to *real* homeopaths because I do know I don't know enough, though what you wrote isn't unknown information to me!)

                      I am not a homeopath, receive no remuneration for any advice (however limited it may be!) I may offer another or for any of the work. Homeopathy isn't my vocation. I use it in animal rescue work, mostly for wildlife and for animals who have remained as family after rescue. People who have heard about my use of homeopathy sometimes ask for help. Three rehabbers in my part of the state are now incorporating homeopathy in their work. I supply all with remedies, MM's and Rep's and try to help them as best I can.

                      It may be difficult to understand but my *office* is usually the van which has power for my lap top that has both Radar and MacRep on it. It also has power for lighting as the *patients* are often near dead, on the sides of roads or in fields, in the middle of the night. They don't speak and have no medical history. So, yes, when cutting open a dead doe's belly on a dark back road at 3 AM, in the rain, by myself, to try to save her unborn fawn, I will use the one symptom system to decide what that preemie baby might need at that moment. What other symptoms would be of use for a squirrel brought in with severe malocclusion who was a perfectly normal squirrel otherwise?

                      I take some solace for my inadequacies from the words of Jeff Lederman, of Island Wildlife Rescue, who wrote " How should I go about choosing the simillimum for an unconscious harbor seal pup that quite possibly will be dead by morning. None of the animals admitted to the wildlife center come with any sort of history that I could be aware of. To get an idea of the circumstances leading to their present condition is usually pure speculation. All of my patients know that I am a predator, and that I am about to kill and eat them. The very symptoms necessary for accurate homeopathic prescribing are instinctively hidden by wild animals so as not to show weakness. The animals I am faced with don't have the time for me to administer one well chosen remedy, let that remedy runs its course, then reevaluate the symptoms. More often than not, they will be dead. So, I frequently choose what I feel are the best two or three remedies. I check to make sure they do not antidote one another and I administer them." The case this is quoted from can be seen at

                      I figure that as soon as I find a way of not needing that 5 hours a day (on a lucky day) I waste sleeping, save enough money (costs about $15,000 per year now to support this volunteer job, not including vehicle, gas, phone, coffee to stay awake....) and find out how to turn back the clock so I'm a whole lot younger, I will enroll in homeopathy school and do it better! But for now, bad as it may be, prescribing as I do, it's this or nothing for these animals. There are only two of us doing wildlife in the entire county and it's a big county. No one is breaking down the doors to take over for us!

                      Thanks for the advice, Austin Powers. You must have a very successful practice, you certainly have the data down pat. Want to come out on some of my calls? Your help would be very much appreciated.
                      Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.


                      • #12
                        Hello gpm,

                        May I jump in here? Austin is quite capable of further explaining himself, and I would not presume to do that. Whilst I am totally convinced of your motivations for helping endangered, maltreated, suffering animals by the aid of your homoeopathic expertise, I would ask you to consider another point of view.

                        I don't know of any practitising homoeopathic practitioners who don't have the task of unravelling mismanaged cases due to a patient's own self-prescribing, 'anyone-can-do-this-at-home-opathy', or unfortunately due to some other homoeopath's prescriptions. In the last week I was asked to attend a case of a 2 year old with eczema who'd been prescribed Morgan Pure with no amelioration for several months on the basis that dietary indiscretions were causing the skin complaint.

                        It is no problem for me to state that I've mismanaged quite a few cases in line with my understanding of homoeopathic principles at the time and I endeavour to learn from my mistakes. In order to learn one has to in the first instance admit how little one knows, and encompass how vast the material is that has to be studied and integrated, and recognize the twofold responsibility between client and practitioner in every case toward cure. Noone would pick up a scalpel and perform brain surgery with inadeqate training on a patient, yet it is quite ok in some arenas of homoeopathy to prescribe on organic or psychological symptoms with amatuerish/new age diagnoses which merely end up leaving the patient a 'therapy junkie' for life, "take Aconite every time you have a panic attack" and no cure is attained.

                        But here I'm referring to human animals, and in my view we are asked in a holistic sense to approach the homoeopathic treatment of non-human animals with even greater care and responsibility. This is not a question of who has the deepest homoeopathic principles in their hearts compared with who has the most honourable intentions towards animals (human and otherwise). This is about whether we want to continue administering haphazard guessing games in the name of homoeopathy.

                        On the lightforce list to which you subscribe there are homoeopathic vets and people not unlike yourself who are not trained vets but who have built up an understanding of homoeopathic cure through continued studies. Magda Aguila is one such person you may wish to contact. Gaby Rottler is a trained vet and homoeopath who would probably assist you in emergency cases. These people are dedicated animal welfarers, but like yourself, this does not mean they have unlimited resources. Everyone who takes it upon themselves to administer a homoeopathic potency in the name of homoeopathy has a duty to know exactly what they are doing.

                        There is a danger here that personalizing this issue will prevent further useful knowledge from being attained. I hope we are all bigger in ourselves not to let that happen.

                        Warm regards,


                        • #13
                          Let me begin by saying that I think what you do shows a lot of dedication, heart, determination and perseverance, not to mention hard work. These animals are fortunate to have someone like you to look after them. You commented your about experiences but they aren't quite in line with what I was talking about with reference to the initial remedy suggestion in this thread.

                          I was referring to chronic cases that tend to present here on this BB. Not cases that are a result of an accident, injury, etc - 'acutes', in essence (be it animal or human).

                          Dealing with animals, mainly in acute situations, (arising from accidents and/or injuries, neglect, etc.) is quite a different scenario from dealing with humans where the complaint is likely to be of a chronic nature when someone presents their complaint the way Sheilanne did.

                          This is where we must first ascertain if the complaint is an acute or if it is chronic situation. If it is chronic, we need to dig for more info where there is no pressing urgency to administer a remedy right away (i.e. once we've determined it is not an emergency). If it is acute, there are other things to consider as well...

                          Some cases on this BB are a result of accidents or injuries (acutes). The majority of cases presenting here asking for help are indeed chronic complaints, as it usually turns out. Once we know what we're dealing with then we can decide how to proceed as safely as possible.

                          This is pretty basic stuff, I thought. So, I was surprised to see Sulph suggested without finding out if this was a result of some injury or accident (i.e. knocked in the eye or some substance having contaminated the eye, etc.) This was in no way a criticism of how you practise (I don't know how you got that idea). This was no criticism of anyone else either; it was an observation on my part where I felt more questions should be asked before suggesting a remedy. I don't think Snoopy, in particular, disagreed as she subsequently posted info about the questionnaire. I'm sure it must've been an oversight. None of us are exempt from making them!

                          I don't claim to know all the in's and out's of what is and isn't safe in prescribing. I'm learning and probably will never cease to learn. But I have a clue, with reference to the Organon, and I contribute where I feel I can; as everyone does here . If I ever prescribed here and made an oversight, I would hope someone would care enough to catch it and keep me on my toes. Afterall, it's about the patient - not me, isn't it.

                          Anyhow, is there somewhere one can send donations to help support your organisation? Please PM details to me. I'm quite serious. Have a good day with your furry friends. Austin.


                          • #14
                            Downloaded the page earlier, before Chris' post, so I only saw it after I just posted.

                            Chris the last thing which you wrote is so, so true. Thanks for the reminder. Jus knock me upside the head with a bar of chocolat if I slip thata way, k? I can take it (plus I'll jus eat the choccie - it lessens the glaring reminder). Austin


                            • #15
                              My teacher says. We do take all the symptoms but we only need one symptom to prescribe a remedy. The purpose of taking all symptoms is to find or select peculiar or particular symptom. We always based our recommendation on one symptom. If our selection of remedy is also covering other symptoms then it is an advantage. Other wise it is not compulsory.
                              <b>Dr. M Iqbal (Classical Homeopath)<br />Iqbal Poly Clinic, Main Market, Kharian<br />Phone Clinic: 05771-511337, Residence: 05771-533737 </b>