In depth case analysis-Really?

If you look on the internet, right now, there are a plethora of the modern guru’s promoting seminars for unraveling the mysteries of case analysis. This implies that there are secrets and difficulties in the process. Considering that the ‘secrets’ are freely available, along with the methodology in the Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann. For those that dont know, Hahnemann was the researcher that compiles the do’s and don’ts of the practice of Homoeopathic medicine.

He was not a mean man. He gave away freely the information regarding the practice. He would teach interested doctors the methodology, and lectured extensively on the matter. History shows that then as now, People did not listen.

Kent did not listen. Hering did not listen. The majority of the body of people claiming to practice homoeopathy today did not listen and refuse to listen now. Instead they prefer to have their ears tickled by ‘modern methods’ which go against the principles of practice by using personalities, sensations and elements to ‘prescribe’ a medicine that fits the patients disease.

You do need to be shown some things. You do need to be guided in your study of the Organon by someone not influenced by the Swedenborgian religious view of Kent. You do need to have the real Hahnemannian model of case taking explained  without a filter placed over it. You do need to practice the method on patients to see the benefits.

You also need to use a guide to the Materia Medica that is accurate and has the approval of Hahnemann. You do need to know what a prescribing symptom is, and how to combine it with other prescribing symptoms to form a picture of the remedy.

You do need to know what is fact and what is interpretation.

The modern homoeopath is at a tremendous disadvantage in the therapy. He or she has never been taught real homoeopathy, and has learned to despise it by taking up the false methodologies. Most worship Hahnemann and have a view of the therapy as being part of the spiritual life of humans. How much more wrong can a person be?

It is not a spiritual involvement. It is a medical practice. The success or failure of a treatment has nothing to do with religion or earth awareness or intent. Its a medical practice.

If a statement by a guru is in opposition to a statement by Hahnemann, or collectively leads toward a spiritual path, or a path that promotes personality prescribing, or a prescription based on a central delusion or sensation, or biased toward an element-then you have been misled. Hahnemann treated disease as expressed in ALTERED symptoms both mental and physical in the patient. It is not buried deep or require mental gymnastics to formulate a theory why it happened.

Go back to the beginning and read Hahnemann again.

8 responses to “In depth case analysis-Really?

  1. Have you not realized that Hahnemann is your guru and you are simply doing a ‘my guru is better than your guru’ thing?

    • HI Robin

      I dont always follow your logic. Hahnemann designed a method to apply the law of similars in a therapeutic way. It works if applied in the requisite manner. Its a medical practice in antithesis to allopathic application. In moving aside from allopathic prescribing and treatment, it is the duty of every person to understand the rationale and thinking behind the application of the practice.
      Unless the methodology is practised precisely, it will not work effectively. People will use creams and lotions and call it homoeopathic. People will prescribe on wrong symptoms and call it homoeopathic. But mainly they will justify what they do and decry the methodology because it does not suit them. A bit like your statement suggests.

      If I bought a Honda car I would look to the Honda Engineers to tell me how it works and what its limitations and capabilities are. If I went outside of the parameters set by them, and it malfunctions……….Then its my fault.

      • and following your line of reasoning, if you bought a Honda you would be going on Facebook telling everyone that Hondas are the only cars worth driving and all others are rubbish, because the Honda Engineers told you so. You are dogmatic and a fundamentalist and there is no room for either of these things in ‘science’. Your belief system is more akin to religion than science. Your assertion that the people that have tried to advance the ‘science’ beyond the original 18th century basis have not understood “the rationale and and thinking behind the application of the practice” and are not practising the law of similars is fatuous to say the least. Sorry to be harsh but I think you need to take a long hard look in the mirror before you so readily dismiss the output of so many brilliant minds. I dont actually subscribe to any of the stuff you decry but I do acknowledge that I dont have a monopoly on the truth. Do you?

      • My goodness!

        If I buy a Honda its because I like a Honda and in owning a Honda I will drive within the limits of the Engineers recommendations. I can go and purchase ANY other vehicle and the same rules apply. I do not buy a Honda and then deviate from those recommendations. People are free to choose their own vehicle, but will not get get the best out of it unless follow the guidelines. Where they go wrong is taking other manufacturers recommendations and applying them to a Honda. If I work for Honda, I will apply all Hondas recommendations. I also have a certain manufacturers X ray equipment. I will follow the instructions carefully or it may damage a patient or me.

        We are dealing with a medical speciality here. a sound, rational and scientific based therapy that has withstood the test of time simply because the information required to apply it has not changed. You call it 18th century and a failure TO ADVANCE. I would ask you to tell me what needs to change in casetaking? What needs to change in knowledge of Materia Medica? What needs to change in ascertaining the information? What needs to change in medicine application?

        So far the “brilliant minds” have corrupted, not enhanced casetaking and are looking for something that either involves really bad and poor psychology and or personality prescribing rather than expression of disease as exhibited by the individual patient. They have gone against the recommendations for use and in doing so, have failed both the methodology of homoeopathy and the tenets of modern medicine.

        I would go further and state, that the broadmindedness you strive to promote, is in part due to a lack of knowledge of the entire body of work as penned by Hahnemann, and a liking for the principle yet a lack of a comprehensive knowledge behind it. In short, you dont know what you dont know. You state that you do not lay claim to absolute truth and yet cannot justify your reasons on rational scientific grounds why you are a homoeopath and prescribe medicines to people. There either has to be truth in what you do, and proof it works, and that is predicated by an understanding the rationale behind it and an adherence to the protocol as laid down by the founder of the system to ascertain the knowledge required, or you practice falsely to the scientific practice.

        I dont know about absolute truth. (It was you who brought it up in a quasi spiritual way.) But I do know truth in practice.
        You have been harsh, where you claimed that you did not mean to. You have laid claim to me having a ‘belief system’ that is fundamentalist and religious in approach. Almost a blind adherence to a practice in its original form. You dont know me or my background or knowledge or experiences. You dont know what it took to change from allopathy to a system of medicine that is diametrically opposed to conventional chronic patient care. You dont know the years of research and experimentation just to validate Hahnemanns claims, not to find a better way to do it , but just to be convinced it works the way he said it did and is repeatable. You dont know what it took to treat patients with a different therapeutic set of medicines. You dont know what it took to hold my nerve when things looked like they were going tip over apex. Mostly, you dont know what it took to change from a Kentian overlay that I had and return to the correct application.

        We have had a sharp exchange, and for that I apologise for what you take as dogmatism. Absolute truth? no. there is no claim to that. Truth in practising the correct way? yes, if I am a homoeopath as I claim, I plead guilty to following the instructions.

      • Obviously this isnt going anywhere but I will point out that you similarly have no knowledge of the combined research and experience (probably amounting to hundreds of thousands of hours) of the people you trash – those that you believe to have “corrupted” your belief system. Does it not strike you that there is something not quite right about the possibility that only you know the true way and only you achieve true healing in your patients? I’m trying to get my head around that idea but Im struggling.

      • Hi Robin
        We will end the conversation here. For the first time I agree with you that obviously this discussion is going nowhere. If you can point out any advancements from these brilliant minds and hundreds and thousands of hours research, I will be happy to discuss them with you.

      • The obvious advancement, that shouldn’t have to be pointed out to anyone who thinks for themselves, is that we have a lot more understanding than Hahnemann did about the workings of the human mind and body. There are many ways in which the organism can exhibit changes from normal that Hahnemann had had little knowledge of. Even now we probably haven’t scratched the surface of that. And how could it be that Hahnemann discovered every medicine in existence in his short life? That is obviously nonsensical. What other branch of science has not advanced one iota since the 18th Century? I dont think we should be proud to be alone in that department. I am not even trying to address the big subject of which homeopaths achieve the best results. I am just pointing out the shallow thinking behind your assertions.

      • Good grief Robin! You completely missed the entire point of the conversation! I asked you to show me how the brilliant minds of the modern homoeopaths have increased knowledge in 200 years. For those of us at the IHM who are medically trained physicians, there is grateful acceptance and freely acknowledged respect for the advances in diagnostics and system understanding. It does not change the directives for case taking, case management and the Materia Medica one jot.

        No more to be said.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.