|
||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Forums
Courses
Shop
Diseases
Articles
Journal
Directory| |
|||||
Homeopathy Articles |
|||||
| |
|||||
| Hpathy Ezine - April, 2007 | |||||
| |
Luc De Schepper
|
 |
|||
Elaine: You
mean I still work here? You aren't going to mention HIM anymore,
are you? OK, let me ask you about the Periodic Table and the new
methods in working with that. Dr. Luc: It was not really new as it was advocated to some extent in the past by Farrington and Roberts among others. It is an interesting method as long as one remains true to our principles and sees the limitations in its use. I wrote a book called Homeopathy and the Periodic Table to show that we don’t have to speculate at all using this method but can use it based on the provings only. Filling in the blank gaps (not even Mendelejeff did this) and then presenting a "case" that was "cured" with that chosen remedy is not something I feel comfortable with. Why not prove these remedies in the same fashion as the old homeopaths did? We must be aware of what Hering (in Analytical Repertory of the Symptoms of the Mind, introduction) and Hahnemann (in Chronic Diseases, under Alumina, footnote) warned us about following such a road: "There are two kinds of symptoms: those produced (provings)
and those cured, are essentially different…The marking of
such different origins should always be done with the utmost care
in the monograph of the Materia Medica. It should be considered
as a matter of the highest importance, never to mix INDISCRIMINATELY
symptoms reported as cured (not having been observed on the healthy),
with the symptoms produced by the drug…Perplexity instead
of lucidness would be developed through the combination of the differential
and degree marks…The choice of the remedy should be GOVERNED
BY THE SYMPTOMS COMING FROM THE PROVINGS." (Capitals by author) What about remedy families? I can’t see how this makes it easier for the student to find the simillimum. You must still learn a lot of characteristics of each family by heart. There is a danger for those students adhering to families and the Periodic Table methods only: I have seen enough times that the student/or the seminar participant "wants" to see a remedy according to these methods, even when the remedy shows a clear polychrest not belonging to these methods or the remedy can be found much easier by a method derived from the "value of symptoms." Some more disturbing things occur. Another eminent homeopath treated one of my students for severe depression and since she was a vet and loved horses, gave her Lac Equininum! If I would show something like this to my allopathic colleagues they would laugh us out the door! The case was resolved by Sulphur followed by Calc-c! Can such a homeopath not recognize Sulphur? It would be funny if such teachings would not have catastrophical
consequences. Why do you use such a strong word? In Europe, Canada and the US, enrollment of homeopathic schools
is down and schools close. What is worse, many who went through
a three year school stop practicing homeopathy after one or two
years because they are discouraged. Would you think that anyone
who had results would stop practicing? How will this advance homeopathy? I hope you don't mind my asking, but, are
you sure that schools are closing in Europe, Canada and the US in
remarkable numbers, and are you sure that the reason for such closings
is that people aren't getting results in their practices? Yes I am very sure. I have several friends who are representatives
for homeopathic software. They come to every seminar and see what
really is happening. In Belgium there used to be five great schools
in homeopathy. This year not one of them has a new student I was
told. In Holland half of the medical doctors doing homeopathy stopped
doing it. In my own school I see students coming from Canada, for
instance. When I ask them how many of their friends are practicing
out of ten who graduated, ONE! Why would people stop practicing
after one to two years out of school? Because they have great results?
Certainly the opposite is more logical. If one has great success
in their practice, there is no reason to stop practicing. This will
not lead to advancing homeopathy! This is quite shocking news about the schools!
But do continue. What about "the core delusion"? Core delusion and core sensation: Should we really be limiting
our simillimum choice to one such trait? Repeatedly asking, "What
is your sensation," does not come over well with everyone.
We should all study the four functions of consciousness of Jung
so that we understand that following such approach would offend
many of our patients. We all have a dominant function of consciousness,
but the successful homeopath is he who can speak to the patient
in the patient’s dominant function, not his own! Could you give an example of what you mean
by "speaking in the patient's dominant function?" For instance, the homeopath often has a dominant THINKING function
(Sulphur, Lach, Lyc, etc.) and his patient may be a Feeling-intuitive
type like Phosphorus. It would be wrong for this homeopath to address
his patient in his "thinking function". You mean by lecturing, theorizing...? Yes, by launching into a tedious explanation of one thing and another, explaining vibrational medicine, etc. when the feeling type is more interested in his or her emotions, that is how he/she approaches everyday problems! When I talk in my works about the core delusion (CD), it is very different than what is commonly proposed: it is defined according to Carl Jung’s works, which I introduced in homeopathy as follows: "The Core Delusion (CD) is the dominant, ruling emotion that
has its origin in what Jung called, "a high feeling-toned
complex" or our "ailments from." Could you expand on that? A high feeling toned complex refers to a long ago painful event
that was not resolved and therefore has evolved often to a fixed
idea. In other words, this complex is linked to our NWS. For instance:
the painful event was a betrayal. As you can see this is equal to
our NWS betrayal. It is a fixed idea leading to many compensations
or defense mechanisms and even secondary delusions because of inadequate
therapy received. The core delusion (CD) is the driving force behind
the person’s actions, thoughts and plans. The CD is the central
point, the beginning of the patient’s story, and an important
finding not only in formulating and understanding the crux of the
patient’s suffering, but also in finding the similar remedy
that will free him from this fixed idea. And the correct interpretation
of the CD must MATCH the compensations based upon the real provings
of the chosen remedy, the standard we apply in homeopathy to separate
truth from fiction. Can you give an example of the Core Delusion
matching the compensations? Are you saying the remedy has to be
found both in the delusion rubric and in the rubric that describes
how he compensates? Rajan Sankaran has been known to say, "Don't
get so caught up in the patient's story, it's more about how he
reacts to the story." Do you go along with that? How he reacts to the story is called compensation. Compensations are defense mechanisms that the patient uses to reinforce his CD (if it is good for him, then, "I am an important person") or to flee from his CD if it is bad (Delusion, I am ugly). Giving an example would be giving the story of a whole remedy which is beyond the scope of this article; could be done later in a separate article. And indeed the remedy is found both in NWS, CD and his compensations: they do make ONE story! Homeopathy will never be extinguished. The threat to homeopathy remains the same as it was in the past: not allopathy, but pseudo-homeopathy. Rather than reducing homeopathy to speculation through speculative innovative methods, cases should be presented in every seminar and journal based on the philosophy of The Organon (which is not, by the way, an "old bible"). Tell me what aphorism is wrong and tell me what novelty has been invented so far that could be the basis for the seventh edition. I am waiting for the response. Some say that they need these "advanced" theories to resolve their more complicated cases. I invite anyone to send me one such case that I could not resolve with what Hahnemann has taught. I feel that studying Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and psychology
rather than speculative novel methods are far more useful in homeopathic
practice. Both follow our homeopathic language and will benefit
the homeopath knowing his patient better. For instance, dream analysis,
totally unknown in homeopathy, would help us in selecting and confirming
our chosen simillimum. When the homeopath knowing that a "recurring
dream" is important, is confronted with such a dream, my question
is: "So what do you do with the contents of such dream?"
So far I have not found any takers to answer me. Are you saying that looking for the dream
in the Dream chapter or the Delusions section is not sufficient? No. Can you tell me what you do with that? A dream is an INDIVIDUAL
expression of the person’s unconscious. The same dream has
a totally DIFFERENT meaning for both of us. So the section in Kent
about dreams has very little meaning at all since it does not help
us most of the time to bring additional information for the simillimum.
But dream analysis has at least 13 uses in homeopathy (part of my
new book) and understanding dreams can give us for instance the
message that we have chosen the right remedy (should be added to
Aphorism 255-dreams are often the FIRST sign of the simillimum)
or can point to the simillimum. There is so much more to say about
this! Dr. Luc, a while back you said giving Lac
Equinum to a patient who loves horses would be laughable. It brings
me to the question, what is a symptom? Is it ever acceptable to
use "Loves Horses" or "Loves Animals" or "tea"
or anything else? That example was a prescription from an "eminent" homeopath
to one of my students entirely based on the fact that she was a
vet and loved horses. Her main complaint was severe depression.
This wrong prescription lead to a greater depression till I had
to rescue her with Sulphur and Calc-c which cured the depression.
Lac equinum could hardly be called the totality of the symptoms
and was more than a speculative choice and unworthy of our homeopathic
practice. That does not mean that "loves animals" could
not be a symptom, if it is, as per Aphorism 153: strange, rare,
peculiar, etc. In other words, many people deal with their grief
by concentrating on animals, rescuing them, loving animals more
than humans, etc. Carcinosin and Nat-m are just two of these. If
the "loving" is unusually strong, exaggerated and even
sometimes guiding a patient’s life, it is "out of the
norm" and can be taken into account to find the simillimum. Very good answer. I'm participating here today in the spirit of a real dialogue,
an invitation to honest conversation so that homeopathy may prosper.
I am all for progress in homeopathy but homeopaths should build
new ideas on what Hahnemann taught us and should never forget the
roots upon which our science was built in the first place. This may seem like a naive question but,
why is it important to adhere to Hahnemann? Is there anything among
the "innovations" that has caught your eye and caused
you to say, "Brilliant!" Also, you have an audience of
16,000 people here...what do you absolutely want people to stop
doing immediately for the sake of their patients and for immediate
improvement in the outcome of their cases? Precisely because I never had to say, "Brilliant!" do I adhere to Hahnemann’s teachings. Can anyone tell me what aphorism is wrong and why? And no, so far NO ONE has ever produced new principles or views that can be added to the Organon or create a 7th edition. What I see is that people think they are doing something new and it was already done by Hahnemann and often discarded. The real problem, as I stated: people don’t read or understand
The Organon, and management of the patient is poor worldwide! How can we immediately improve our case management
skills? STOP the dry doses of the 4th edition, and learn the water
potencies of 5th and 6th Organon! Adhere to Aphorism
246 of the 6th edition and repeat WHILE the patient is improving!
This is not the same as MECHANICALLY repeating the dose till the
bottle is empty. First always do a test dose which will determine
how often you have to repeat with that patient’s case, following
the law of individuality! And here's what I always tell my clients: Stop the dosing if you experience a striking improvement OR an aggravation! Let me ask you about miasms: the fact that
a person reacts a certain way to stress,
can't that be indicative of his dominant miasm? Yes of course! We must again look at the totality of his compensations
(which you refer to). A person will react according to what Carl
Jung called, a predetermined hereditary MANDATORY response pattern,
in our language, the predominant miasmatic state. So a syphilitic
person, confronted with any situation in life, cannot choose to
react in a psoric way and if he does it will come over as awkward
and false. It is here that I disagree with the eminent psychiatrist
Victor Frankl, whose works I admire, that a person does NOT have
the ultimate freedom to choose when being in a certain situation.
I refer here to the time when Dr. Frankl was in the concentration
camps, and people chose death throwing themselves in the electrical
barb wire around the camps or chose to share the little crumbs of
bread with others. He calls it a freedom of choice; I call it a
mandatory miasmatic response. Killing yourself to escape your fate
is syphilitic. Sharing is psoric! Did I mention that George Vithoulkas is our
Esteemed Homeopath of the Month? Eminently, as I recall. Oh yes, that is the word, eminent! Shall I leave through the back door? I'll get your coat. ____________________________________________ Luc De Schepper, MD, PhD, DI Hom., CHom., Lic.Ac. Visit his website at www.DrLuc.com Elaine Lewis, DHom, CHom. Elaine takes online cases. Visit her website at www.hpathy.com/office/ElaineLewis.asp |
|||||
<-- Previous -- |
|||||
|
|||||
