No announcement yet.

Acute Remedies

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Acute Remedies

    Having grilled several people, I now understand that there is no real scientific basis for the linking of certain acute remedies with chronic remedies. It seems that they are linked either by similarity in Nature or similarity in disease produced. eg both have congestive headaches or anxiety etc. etc,
    If anybody else has any views I'd be interested to know.


  • #2
    So would I!!
    I remember when I college trying to get a list of acutes and their chronics and even failed miserably to get that out of the lecturers so if you have a list I would appreciate it!! I only know the basic ones eg Bell and Calc , Bry. and Nat Mur
    RSHom - Registered Homeopath


    • #3
      Hi Sue and Ricky

      I can readily appreciate your posts as I grappled with the same in college until I came across a particular quote from G K Chesterton - 'Reason itself is a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality.' From that perspective, what price 'scientific validation'? It's just another article of faith! Our categorisations of remedies may help us in our understanding of their action, but if we make the boundaries too rigid then they become constricting. At the end of the day aren't we just looking for the most accurate mirror of *what needs to be cured* in the person in front of us?

      I seem to attract patients who present atypical pictures of remedies: male Sepias and Platinas, Boraxes who positively enjoy downward motion, Scorpions who aren't malicious... yet they all seem to do very well from their treatments, so I've learned to take the 'typical' presentations with a pinch of Nat mur.


      • #4
        I seem to get patients that show all symptoms of a remeedy except that have the wrong temperature modality. e.g. I have patient at the moment who I would love to give sepia, Cimic, or Arist.Clem to but is warm blooded not cold. Should I care? OK so Lachesis may have touched a part but not the cure that I would like!!
        RSHom - Registered Homeopath


        • #5
          Metaphysical speculations, is forbidden by the rules of Hahnemanns organon, homeopathy is a science.

          If you want answers to your questions, read up Boenninghausen, Allens, Kent, Hering, Knerr, etc.

          Both questions and answers in this post resembles teatime gossip, instead of portraiting the real science of homeopathy.

          Nothing in homeopathy is founded on your postulations.
          It seems like you have all been examinated out of the 10 grade, without ever beee in the foregoing grades.


          • #6
            In another post, you wrote the following:
            Could you elaborate on the acute/chronic relationship between those two remedies? Is the acute similar in symptom picture but different in depth or duration of effect? Is the chronic remedy substance an important constituant and therefore a more purified version of the acute remedy?


            • #7
              To GM

              I think you might have taken me slightly wrong here. If you re-read my post perhaps you'll be able to see that I was not advocating metaphysical speculation but was talking about the need to match what needs to be cured in a patient to a specific remedy picture, but without getting hung up on the *keynotes* of the remedy, or on commonly observed remedy relationships.

              When I prescribed, for example, Borax for a patient, it was based on two highly individual SRPs which were single remedy rubrics under Borax. The remedy worked superbly, notwithstanding the fact that the patient had no aggravation from downward motion.

              Any proving of any remedy results in a combined list of symptoms which not every prover will have experienced, even if some (the so-called *keynotes*) will have been experienced by quite a few. And even if Belladonna is frequently observed to be the acute of Calc carb, it will not ALWAYS be so. I was cautioning against the rigid interpretation of these observations into rules which can blind us to the remedy mirrored in the patient sitting in front of us. If you assume that because the patient responded well to Belladonna in an acute, then Calc carb HAS to be their chronic remedy, that seems to me to be making every bit as fundamental an error as indulging in metaphysical speculation.


              • #8
                As GM said keep on churning the sea of knowl. saturated in the books he has mentioned. Slowly and surely confusions would evaporate.
                If Calc.figures in the situation where Bell or R.T. had earlier worked Calc would certaily score more than others. If there is a constitutional agreement also exits there are all the chances that it is going to work as homoeopathic cure.
                It is not possible that all the keynote symptoms are to be found in every case there you have to weigh your 'for and against' accordinfg to your experince what you are scipping and what you are including.So is the case with thermal modality. But here one has to weigh very very precisely.

                VIJ<br /><br />


                • #9
                  Its all expressed in homeopthys first law, if anyone knows that: similia similibus currentur.
                  And to tell what science is, then you need first of all to know science, and to know science, you need to know the mother of all sciences!


                  • #10
                    The books that may be helpful with with Rx relationships are "Relationships Homeoapthic Remedies (Chitkara) and Drug Relationship(C.B.Knerr)
                    However these are guidelines at best and any rule can be broken, if it best serves the individual Px.