|
Read
Dr. Luc De
Schepper's New Blog for HSCN!
Dr. Luc is the author of excellent
books on Classical Homeopathy.
Elaine:
Dr. Luc, you were the first to answer our invitation to discuss the "new methods
in homeopathy". You're always so willing to share your knowledge!
Dr. Luc: This discussion is more than timely,
Elaine! The homeopathic world seems to be inundated with new theories, often
bordering on the esoteric, promising fast and easy solutions. The real student
knows that there are no short cuts, only hard and steady work. True love for
homeopathy and mankind will bring results.
For the last 6 years I have
taught throughout the world. The major question I hear from students and
practitioners alike is, "Why do we hear so many conflicting things that confuse
us? Often these different theories are more confusing than enlightening!" If
homeopaths are confused, you can only imagine how confused patients are when
they receive treatments from different homeopaths that seem to contradict each
other; but before I again get unjustly accused, let’s view each other's comments
as a healthy dialogue like the old masters conducted. Even an eminent physician
like Kent was not exempt from criticism when he concocted some mixed remedies at
his desk. Rather than a monologue (mono-logos) we should conduct a genuine
dialogue devoid of personal attacks.
Elaine:
I assure you that this is
what we at "Homeopathy 4 Everyone" are trying to have, an enlightened
discussion. How would you like to begin?
I will begin by observing that
the present homeopathic world seems to be focused on "finding the simillimum."
Elaine:
I'm not even sure what that
means! I had a 9 yr. old child whose mother said his chief complaint was
sinusitis with a stopped-up nose that wouldn't let him sleep because of trouble
breathing. He kept the whole house awake at night with his loud breathing! But,
I, on the other hand, had observed that this was (ta-da!) an Asperger's child--a
math savant who couldn't make eye contact; consequently, I suddenly found the
whole sinusitis issue BORING and concentrated my efforts on finding a remedy for
the child's mental state. In the meantime, a "less ingenious", simple-minded
homeopath and neighbor of the mother gave the child Hydrastis 30C for the
sinusitis, and cleared it right up!
The parents were
deliriously happy, they were telling everyone how great homeopathy was! I had
forgotten the most important lesson of Hering's Law: "Healing takes place in
reverse order!" (Hence, the importance of the most recent symptom), which leads
me to make another observation: very few of us know how to take an acute case,
which makes us more INCLINED to ignore the acute occurrence and concentrate on
the constitutional layer, which may well be out-of-reach precisely BECAUSE of
the acute problem!
Well indeed, this is what is
called the need for an acute intercurrent according to Aphorism 75! See my book
Achieving and Maintaining the Simillimum on how to take an acute case.
Elaine:
I have it and I'm reading
it!
I also teach my students the von Boeninghausen method, excellent for acutes and chronic cases! But assuming for
the moment that we had completed the first step-- "finding the simillimum", most
seminars and journals neglect the second step which is as important as the
first, namely, the patient’s MANAGEMENT! Even Kent lamented, "Why do we
lose so many patients from the second visit after a successful first
intervention?" Let’s face it: the homeopath sometimes can get lucky finding the
simillimum, but what to do next is outside the realm of guesswork.
Elaine: You're right about that!
Personally, I think the homeopath
who is the best MANAGER is to be preferred above the one that finds the
simillimum, because when erring in finding the simillimum, the homeopath versed
in management knows what to do and corrects his mistake immediately. He who is
inadequate in management loses his patient from the second visit on, bringing
discredit to homeopathy and himself.
Elaine: That is so true; in fact,
even my latest case is someone who came to me only because his previous
practitioner, despite having found the right remedy, totally lost the case by
giving the same potency over and over again. He now has no energy and no
interest in life and finding the proper remedy now is very difficult. So, yes,
what earthly good did finding the simillimum do?
What is most amazing to me is the
general lack of knowledge, world-wide, about the
Organon and
Chronic Diseases. This is not the case with practitioners of other medical
modalities. Allopathy and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) start from the same
textbooks before the start of building new theories on the fundamentals of the
science involved. TCM schools all start studying and applying the old books from
the beginning on and not much has been added since 5000 years ago. Most
practitioners of homeopathy say that they studied the
Organon in depth;
yet, looking at their way of practicing one has to conclude that they do not
believe anything Hahnemann wrote as often they neglect to follow what Hahnemann
proposed. "Eminent" teachers go so far as to claim this
Organon is "an
old dusty bible," and take the excuse that "Hahnemann would have liked us to
progress beyond what he did." Progress indeed is what Hahnemann and all of us
would like to see, but progress is not building a speculative
theory on drifting sand, neglecting all our ground principles.
Elaine: Which are.....
Our Laws; like Individuality, one
remedy at a time, the minimum dose, the laws of dissimilar and similar diseases
and repetition of the remedy. I am amazed how Hahnemann’s words are misquoted
and how various teachers claim that Hahnemann made mistakes too and did not
follow always what he wrote in
The Organon. They seem to forget that
Hahnemann continuously experimented but that his experiments were always based
on our basic laws. For instance, I invite those who claim that Hahnemann only
used LM potencies in six cases in his Paris years to read carefully the
microfiches available (written in French) to back up those claims. I doubt of
course such a statement when it is made by someone who cannot speak French!
Here are some other statements by
"famous" teachers. I want to remind teachers that they have a great duty to
spread truthful information in light of the influence they have on students. I
defer naming names as I only want to discuss their message, not the character of
the person.
"I do not know anything about
miasms but I don’t believe in this theory." This sounds much like the allopathic
doctor who says that he does not know anything about homeopathy but does not
believe in it. What happened to Hering’s dictum, "...not to reject anything
without studying and trying it?" Of course you can’t try a theory without
studying it.
The same teacher claims that "...one
constitutional remedy alone will cure any disease the patient might have during
his life time." And then he produces a case that seems to follow that reasoning,
but what about the other 99 that don't? I remind such a person of the aphorisms
of dissimilar diseases (from Aphorisms 36-40) and especially 38 where Hahnemann
states that "a stronger dissimilar disease (acute or chronic) will suspend the
old chronic disease, not cure it."
A severe acute disease will
suspend the old chronic one. If one continues the chronic remedy where an acute
is indicated, one is basically treating with a dissimilar remedy and as a
result, you will add accessory symptoms (unhomeopathic to the case of course),
creating a more complex medicinal disease. When a moderate to severe acute
disease occurs, an acute intercurrent is needed, NOT the continuation of the
chronic remedy! This is according to the Law of Similars!
Elaine: Can you explain the
difference between "suppression" and "suspension"?
Big difference! Suppression does
not achieve a cure, on the contrary, the direction of cure is wrong leading to a
deeper more complex disease state, even leading to incurability! Suspension: the
old disease is postponed or suspended (NOT cured) while the Vital Force must pay
attention to the new dissimilar stronger disease. Once the latter is taken care
off, the old chronic disease returns in the SAME (not worse) condition as
before. Has everyone not seen this in the practice?
Elaine: Could you give an example?
For instance: The patient was on
Aurum for a chronic depression when he now suffers from a severe Arsenicum flu.
This flu will suspend the Aurum depression and Arsenicum in acute doses/potency
has to be used as an intercurrent. After the flu, as if by "miracle" the
depression which apparently was alleviated, if not gone, returns with the same
force as before! Constant allopathic and yes, homeopathic suppression, besides
new physical and emotional incidents, produce new layers
needing a new remedy (has such person never heard of the Law of
Similars and the occurrence of dissimilar diseases?). This unfortunate message
seems to reverberate with certain homeopaths who claim that "they never need an
acute nor chronic (nosode) intercurrent." I am baffled by such bold statements
and would, in light of the above aphorisms, like to receive their explanation.
When we talk about the need for an acute intercurrent, I refer the reader to
Aphorism 73, which defines where this intercurrent is needed. I would like to
hear why, in the case of a severe Gelsemium flu, the homeopath should continue
the previous, let’s say grief remedy, Pulsatilla? How is it possible to treat
with dissimilar remedies?
What I truly would like to see in
schools is that the teacher takes a live case, new to him and
students, and sees this patient back on subsequent visits in front of the class.
This is what I do, not only for the honesty but also to teach the student the
all important case-management; no paper cases prepared before (and knowing the
outcome) nor seeing a live case and never seeing that patient back nor supplying
a true follow up. Only then can the student learn and be encouraged as to what
truly happens in the practice!
Elaine: Could you talk more about
proper case management? This is one of my crusades!
I often wonder about the claim
that everyone reads The Organon. When I pose the following question to my
audiences worldwide: "What are your instructions to your patient when he needs
to take an acute intercurrent?" I have nowhere heard the right answer, yet
Hahnemann tells us exactly how to do this in Aphorism 157 and 158.
Elaine: Actually, don't 157 and 158
say that it's not unusual for an acute remedy to cause a brief aggravation but
it's not really an aggravation, it's really a remedy proving? Did you pick the
right aphorisms?
I DID take the right aphorisms.
In Aphorism 157 Hahnemann tells us that in acutes is the ONLY time we are
allowed to create a similar aggravation (see text) "…an aggravation of his own
complaints" is called a similar aggravation, NOT proving. A proving could cause
any of the remedy’s symptoms, not necessarily belonging to the patient’s malady!
If we can’t agree about something
as simple as how and when to give an acute intercurrent, how can we agree on
more complicated issues like treating chronic disease?
Elaine: Dr. Luc, when you have
asked audiences, "What are your instructions to your patient when he needs to
take an acute intercurrent," what answers have you gotten?
Most of the time: "Repeat if
there's no improvement after 15 minutes." (This is totally wrong, as you'd be
giving the remedy DURING the similar aggravation making the aggravation worse.)
Then there's the more BIZARRE answers like, "The patient has to come to my house
to ask me if it is OK to take another dose!" Most answers relate to too much and
too early repeating making management hopeless!
Elaine:
Could you expand on why you
can't repeat the acute remedy if there's no improvement after 15 minutes? (Not
that I know why you'd be repeating a remedy every 15 minutes anyway, unless you
had a heart attack, or something.)
Indeed when we talk about a life
threatening situation then indeed we repeat even every 15 minutes if need be;
but, in Aphorism 157 it says that a homeopathic aggravation can be expected
within the hour of the first dose. And if that happens--Aphorism 158--there is a
high probability that the disease will be cured by this first dose. So you can
imagine, that if the patient would repeat during the aggravation time, let’s say
every 15 minutes in the first hour when the similar aggravation occurs, the
similar aggravation will be more outspoken, confusing the patient and homeopath
alike!
Elaine: So, wait, to be clear, are
you saying that people said that if you are worse after the first dose,
you can repeat the remedy?
You would be surprised how many
homeopaths around the world did say exactly that, to repeat the remedy after 15
minutes if the situation gets worse. (I always give the example of a diarrhea
attack I had in India for which I took China--it lasted for one full hour with
at least ten bowel movements in that period of time and yet after one hour it
was gone and I never needed another dose!)
Then there are the statements
supported by the sacred sentence, "It is my experience that…," as if that
justifies anything and is the last word to be accepted without real dialogue.
I also hear,
"The dose of the remedy is not as important as finding the right remedy."
Elaine: It's funny you should
mention that. In the very first introductory course I took in homeopathy, the
audience kept asking, "What potency should we give?" "It's more important to
know the remedy," the instructor would say, but somehow this answer never felt
satisfying to the class because they kept asking, "Which potency?" It was as if
they understood that the remedy by itself just wasn't enough information.
This is exactly right, the
definition of the Simillimum is not choosing the right remedy, but it is
choosing the right remedy, potency, dose and repetition! Regarding the
dose (how much?), homeopaths would do well to read Aphorism 275 and 276
which I will quote for you:
"The correctness of a medicine
for a given case of disease depends not only on its accurate homeopathic
selection but also on the correct size (or rather smallness) of
the dose. A medicine given in too large a dose though COMPLETELY HOMEOPATHIC TO
THE CASE (my emphasis), will still HARM the patient by the
quantity and unnecessarily strong action on the vital force…"
Elaine: And
"In STRONG DOSES, the more
homeopathic the medicine and the higher in potency, the MORE HARM it does;
indeed it is FAR MORE HARMFUL than equally large doses of unhomeopathic
medicine…Excessively large doses of an ACCURATELY SELECTED HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE,
especially if frequently repeated, are, as a rule, VERY DESTRUCTIVE. Not
infrequently they endanger the patient’s life or make his disease INCURABLE."
(Capitals my emphasis).
Elaine: Looking at these aphorisms
how can any serious homeopath state that the DOSE is not important?
Hahnemann never said anything in
his Organon without testing it for a long time. When the homeopath pays
attention he should see that this is true in the practice. I have seen cases
where three DROPS of the medicine was too much causing a similar aggravation,
one drop did not do anything, but two drops was the required dose.
Then there are those homeopaths
who claim to "cure" by repeating the indicated remedy daily in a dry dose for
months or one dose dry, let’s say 1M, every month for 12 months. Have they read
Chronic Diseases (p156) in which Hahnemann states,
"It is important to observe that
our vital principle cannot bear well that the same UNCHANGED dose of the
medicine be given even TWICE in succession, MUCH LESS MORE FREQUENTLY to a
patient. For by this the good effect of the former dose of medicine is either
neutralized in part, or new symptoms proper to the medicine (accessory
symptoms) which have never been present in the disease, appear,
impeding the cure. The even WELL-SELECTED remedy produces ill effects…"
How can such homeopath state that
he "cured" the case when repeating dry doses unchanged for days or months? And
yet those homeopaths all claim they are "classical" homeopaths. Classical
according to what is the question.
Elaine: A corollary to this would
be the "protocols", the "dosing schedules" for all patients, that's to be
followed irrespective of the patient's response: It could be 200C the first
week, 1M the second week, 10M the third week...and variations thereof, usually
because someone mentioned it at a case conference and it gets passed on.
I've heard many other things,
like giving three unchanged doses the same day, or on three consecutive days; or
30C the first day, 200C the next and 1M the next day, all in dry doses. You
might get away with this in acute diseases but not in chronic diseases with
strong pathology, with sensitive patients and skin diseases. Horrible
homeopathic aggravations will be the result!
Elaine: I've seen them, thank you!
I could go on and on with what I
have seen as a cavalier disregard of our science and art. I have cited the above
examples because I feel they are even more important to discuss than the present
discussion on "new methods".
Elaine: I am sure you are right. I
think you're saying that many practitioners, regardless of the method chosen,
are not able to keep the case moving. In fact, Dr. Luc, watching the hpathy
discussion board for years, I've seen and heard just about everything, but,
there's a post on our discussion board now from someone who is bipolar who, for
months, has been on a 6C remedy, dry, every other day because the one dose of
200C she had put her in the hospital. Well, now the 6C is no longer holding, so,
the homeopath states that she doesn't know what to do; yes, she actually doesn't
know what to do! She claims to be willing, out of desperation (!?) to try a 10M!
I replied to the post saying this was the most insane rationale for potency
selection I've ever heard!
Indeed, worldwide I have seen
this as the biggest threat to homeopathy’s survival. First, there's not knowing
how to give the right interpretation to the action of the first dose; then,
there's the vast amount of time the patient is left alone between dry doses-- I
don’t call it "management" when the homeopath states, "I repeated the dry dose
after 4 weeks because the case was stalled, and after 6 months the patient was
cured. This is not what happens in actual practice. In real life, acutes happen
requiring an acute intercurrent; patients make mistakes in spite of good
explanation, thinking that taking more of the remedy will make the cure go
faster; they use over-the-counter drugs; they take acute remedies available
everywhere when no acute remedy is needed; family members interfere because THEY
don’t like (understand) the changes in the patient. In other words, it is rare
that there is a smooth ride when you don’t guide the patient--hold the patient's
hand. After all, every driver of a car needs a map and a co-pilot and that’s us,
the homeopath, on the journey towards health.
A proposal for a new discussion
in your magazine might be, "Do you follow the fifth and sixth edition of the
Organon in your practice and if not, why not?"
Elaine: I think we would be met
with blank stares if the above post I mentioned is any indication, so maybe you
should tell us what the difference is between the 4th, 5th and 6th ed. of
The Organon.
Keep in mind that 90% of the
world still practices according to the 4th edition dry dose method.
1. The 4th edition prescriber
WANTS a similar aggravation, an aggravation of the patient's symptoms, since it
tells him he has the right remedy (which does not mean OUR wanted
simillimum, which is the right remedy, right dose and right potency). The 5th
and 6th edition prescriber wants to minimize and even totally avoid this
similar aggravation! You can only imagine what that does to the patient. Let's
say you have an eczema case responding to Mezereum: the picture of such eczema
is an extreme violent itching at night, "as if thousands ants crawling under the
skin." The child is usually in a restraint so as not to scratch himself but
usually the patient presents with a face that is one bloody mess, infecting
easily...Imagine you aggravate such a child (4th edition): imagine the agony
this child and the parents alike! Does the homeopath think he can keep this
patient after the first aggravating dose? Too many patients have been lost
forever to homeopathy. Imagine, as I also had, the violent ADHD child that wants
to kill his father and sister so he can marry his mother. You aggravate him and
he will kill them!
Elaine: I hate when children do
that.
2. The 4th edition prescriber
MUST wait after his first dry dose till he is sure that no more improvement of
the remedy can be expected, as is dictated in the 4th edition
Organon. The 5th
and 6th edition prescriber can redose the patient WHILE having improvement
(Aphorism 246), speeding therefore the cure to half or less of the time. This
dosing is more in line with allopathy except for one difference: we always will
do a TEST dose (first dose) and check with the patient one day later to
determine the interval in which the remedy will be given. As You can see, this
is very different from individual to individual which is a must! Some
practitioners boast that they use the watery methods but let the patient take a
dose every day till the bottle is empty without checking on their patient! This
mechanical repetition has NO place in a good homeopathic practice. So the 4th
edition loses much time trying to achieve a cure leading again to a loss of
patients which he could have kept had he followed Hahnemann's last methods.
3. The 4th edition prescriber is
deadly afraid of many events/substances cancelling his one time given remedy
(first dose) while waiting till the effect has ceased. Therefore he puts many
restrictions on his patient regarding diet and allopathic medications, even
other modalities like TCM (Acupuncture). Even in the case of cancellation of the
remedy during the treatment, the 5th and 6th practitioner repeats the remedy at
determined intervals therefore suffers little from these cancellations as each
next dose will pick up the action on the Vital Force again..
4. In case of similar
aggravation, the advanced prescriber easily adjusts the second dose which can
already be given on the third day, not three weeks later as the 4th edition
prescriber does. He has many possibilities adjusting the dose (the amount,
succussions or potency, 2nd cup, giving drops from the bottle and cup while the
only remedy the 4th edition prescriber has is either cancelling the remedy or
trying to give a lower potency to slow down the aggravation. Either way is
losing time again which is a concern for the patient and the possibility of
losing him.
5. The management of homeopathy
which is difficult is made much more difficult for the 4th edition prescriber
since he has less options available for correction.
6. The watery methods are more
sufficient for longtime suppressed cases (through allopathic meds and even
homeopathy) and for cases on the border of curability.
No matter what the name of the
disease, the 5th and 6th edition prescriber is much more equipped to give the
patient what Hahnemann promised in Aphorism 2: A
speedy, permanent and gentle
cure.
Maybe some of the other
homeopaths can tell me why then they still practice according to the 4th
edition? Who is stubborn and dogmatic here? There is not one reason except that
there is less work for the homeopath but that is a rather selfish reason.
Elaine: Plus the fact that I don't
think anyone knows about this; everyone is giving one dose and waiting a month
and fearing antidoting factors such as mint, coffee and dental work because they
have little expectation of ever repeating this one-time dose, and they are also
afraid of acutes because they don't want to treat them for fear this one-time
dose will be antidoted, so the patient must therefore suffer to protect
this...one-time dose!
RIGHT ON dear Elaine! Now you
understand it perfectly! Yes, is this not a shame that 90% of the world,
including all those eminent teachers do not adhere to this?
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.
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)
Elaine: 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.
Elaine: 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?
Elaine: 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!
Elaine: 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!
Elaine: 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".
Elaine: 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."
Elaine: 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.
Elaine: 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.
Elaine: 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!
Elaine: 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.
Elaine: 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.
Elaine: 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
Organon, and management of the patient is
poor worldwide!
Elaine: 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!
Elaine: 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.
Elaine: Sharing is psoric!
Did I mention that George
Vithoulkas is our Esteemed Homeopath of the Month?
Eminently, as I recall.
Elaine: Oh yes, that is the word,
eminent!
Shall I leave through the back
door?
Elaine: 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 | 
