800 views and no criticism of the case analysis?
We present the cases here for the benefit of those studying with us, and share them with the public. In the main the cases are ‘in house” and are used to encourage the student practitioner to grow. You the public are privvy to how we do things and as such, see how we do things.
To the students..
“To say I am disappointed would be an understatement. Out there in the world, we have a body of people who have undertaken to treat illness as a professional, and with a ‘training’ in homoeopathy and yet, they also with an apparent inability to look at the case and DO THE WORK for themselves.
Several statements in the summation were made that should have made a well trained practitioner get out his or her repertory and work through the case, and more so a student who has this repeated constantly in training.
Our job is to train the student practitioner to NOT ignore anything and double check for themselves. We at the I.H.M, have always warned against the mentality of following a single persons viewpoint, and insist that EACH student/ potential practitioner convince themselves of the prescriptions made through sound and logical examination of each and every case. This is the second time in 16 years the I.H.M. have put out a case analysis to ‘shake up the student practitioners” and now there will be a time for self reproach that you got caught out. It is no wonder that 90% of people who claim to be homoeopaths in the west have little or NO understanding of what the therapy is and are easily derailed and follow spurious philosophies willingly. Just because it sounds logical, looks good does NOT mean it holds ANY validity………
You should NOT be afraid to question. You should NOT be afraid to disagree but mostly, you should NOT ever take anything at face value.
For those of you who feel aggrieved at this presentation, I apologise for hurt feelings. However, if you are one of those who took it at face value and accepted it, perhaps you too need to check medicines more often, to read what Hahnemann said regarding treatment of syphilis and treatment of disease according to symptoms, and question WHY you thought Mercurius was for syphilis. We will not do this again . But Please……… do what you are supposed to do.
We have people who look to us for all the answers, and we are busy encouraging them to look to Hahnemann. To not get too comfortable in their chairs and just listen to pass exams or whatever. Its not like we tried to hide ANYTHING…… the case is easily obtained for reference.
The key symptoms were not in Mercurius. A connection was made to miasms and Hahnemann and that he ALWAYS gave mercurius in syphilis, and that alone should have sent warning bells to the student practitioners. And it didnt.
I received this letter from one colleague who guessed at the reason for the case analysis as presented. (My colleagues first language is not English so please excuse the structure). As you can see he agrees with the general synopsis but went on to explain the reasoning for the prescription.
“…………………Thanks for the well explained analysis by Gary, and Im sure he will explain in due course, Mercurius was NEVER adminstered.
There is a more simple reasoning on how Boenninghausen came out to the remedies each time. Opportunely he considered the sight component symptoms, overall, modalities, so he figured out the crisis at that moment. I,e. the “inability to develop or hold out the rash in eruptive diseases” “when the old eruption together with the chilblains on the feet again appeared”, lead him on choosing Zincum which solved the situation; and several modalities and symptoms let him try the other various remedies. However, in a determinate moment, things went wrong regarding proper describing of the state and symptoms by the patient and he decided see her personally.
Boenninghausen´s knowledge on the tabes dorsalis symptoms (pathology) and the genius of the remedy, allowed him go ahead with the most adequate remedy in that moment.
As Gary wrote:
“weakness, diminished reflexes, paresthesias (shooting and burning pains, pricking sensations, and formication), hypoesthesias (abnormally diminished cutaneous, especially tactile, sensory modalities), tabetic gait (locomotor ataxia), progressive degeneration of the joints, loss of coordination, episodes of intense pain and disturbed sensation (including glossodynia), personality changes, urinary incontinence, dementia, deafness, visual impairment, positive Romberg’s test, and impaired response to light (Argyll Robertson pupil). The skeletal musculature is hypotonic due to destruction of the sensory limb of the spindle reflex. The deep tendon reflexes are also diminished or absent; for example, the “knee jerk” or patellar reflex may be lacking (Westphal’s sign). A complication of tabes dorsalis can be transient neuralgic paroxysmal pain affecting the eyes and the ophthalmic areas, previously called “Pel’s crises” after Dutch physician P.K. Pel. Now more commonly called “tabetic ocular crises,” an attack is characterized by sudden, intense ocular pain, lacrimation and photophobia.”
Genius of the ALUMINA:
“Inactivity of the rectum; even the soft stool requires great straining” (CD ALUMINA 571-579)
“Locomotor ataxia: “Great heaviness in the lower limbs; can scarcely drag them; while walking staggers and has to sit down; in the evening.” (CD ALUMINA 193, 925, 959, 1012, 1058,)
“Inability to walk except with the eyes open and in the day time.” (CD ALUMINA 193, 925, 959, 1012, 1058,)
“Pain in the back as if a hot iron were thrust through the vertebræ.”(CD ALUMINA 567)
Even though Alumina is founded to have “Aphony” within its pathogenesis (see CD 730, 740), is evident, once the patient was observed, that Boenninghausen did consider it as part of the loss of coordination (tongue paralysis) and NOT in the context of an inflammation, edema, nodes or mucus excess in the larynx/vocal cords, as defined in the TPB for remedies included in the rubric. In the other hand, we find a component symptom of sensation as prominent for any kind of analysis, since this symptom only pertains to Alumina:
846 Sensations and Complaints; Generalities, Hot Iron, Pierced through, sensation of; Alumina grade 3.
From this perspective we are able to see that the analysis is possible and that Boenninghausen´s rationale is solid when he changes the remedy to Pulsatilla (please, use the Concordances):
879;954;722;2965; (P&W Repertory)
Same happens with Sulphur.
Once some symptoms were removed, then the symptoms still present were taken into account and related remedies were given.