A Conversation with Elaine Lewis, CHom
Alan: Elaine, do you think all cases can be handled with a single remedy covering all the symptoms?
Elaine: This is an important topic. Andre Saine has a somewhat famous case he tells over and over again if you listen to his conference tapes, as I do. It’s about a patient of his with renal failure.
She needed many remedies, he wrote numerous prescriptions for her over the years. Finally one night he was called to her bedside by the husband. The husband says, “She’s really had it this time, Andre, she’s gone.” There she lay in a uremic coma.
Andre gave her Opium CM. Her eyes opened. Andre said, “Do you need air?” She nodded. He gave her immediately Carbo veg. The Carbo veg. Rx immediately led to something else, perhaps chest pain, for which he may have given Naja. Next came nausea, for which another Rx was made, perhaps Ipecac. What you see here is the unwinding of the case, going back the way it came! It ends in, guess what? Apis, of course! And the renal failure is over and the patient lives!
Now, who in their right mind would have taken a constitutional case here? Of what point or value would it have been to know the constitution at this point? But these cases appear before us and what are we going to do? Ask these patients if they like ice cream? Are they better at the sea shore or worse for cold damp air? Should we ask them, “If you were an animal, which one would you be?”
Most of our patients are going to have something wrong with them! Maybe two or three things wrong! Healing takes place in reverse order–Hering’s Law. Where does the constitutional remedy lie? At the beginning, doesn’t it? Is this where we are in these cases, at the beginning? We can’t go in thinking that every case, every patient, needs his constitutional remedy–the one remedy, the single remedy that’s going to cure the whole case. How is that possible when these cases have add-ons, are complex, have multiple etiologies?
Alan: You’re saying you address whatever needs addressing. And you’re not talking about combining remedies, correct?
Elaine: Andre wasn’t combining remedies. He saw a state and would prescribe for it. His point was, once you start treating these end-stage cases, they are going to unwind with rapidity and you are going to have to be there every step of the way, ready to treat the next presentation that comes up!
We have to recognize that people in middle age and older are going to come to us with all the disorders associated with poor eating habits, drugging, alcohol, cigarettes, kidney failure from diabetes, digestive complaints, sleep disorders from a lifetime of taking sleeping pills, etc. What did Hahnemann call this? Complex disease, meaning many diseases existing alongside each other. Drugs and junk food are mostly to blame. You’ve got multiple etiologies.
Unfortunately, in homeopathy today, the emphasis is on finding the “simillimum”, whatever that means in a case like this. There’s nothing wrong with constitutional prescribing when it’s appropriate but I think popular homeopathy is leaning so far towards one side that many homeopaths actually don’t know what to do with patients who have pathologies! They will either mistakenly give them the “constitutional” remedy, or will pass on the case altogether!
I recently left an end-stage patient with roughly five or six remedy bottles. I said, “This is for your kidney failure, this is for your liver cancer, this is to antidote the side effects of morphine, this is for the edema in your arm and hand due to kidney failure, this is for the cancer pain, and this one’s for heartburn. Don’t take them all at once, spread them out.” I also gave him vitamin C and acidophilus and told him to eat raw fruits and vegetables, no junk food, no cooked food and to drink carrot juice. (I don’t think he complied with too much of that advice!) A week later he was remarkably improved. All the edema had gone out of his arm and hand, urination had increased from once a day to four times a day.
I think we’re neglecting the treatment of these types, leaving them to allopaths and certain death while we treat only “healthy” people.
Alan: And you’re not suggesting all cases be handled this way.
Elaine: Wouldn’t it be nice if people came to us before they were dying!? But in the example I gave, clearly the Serum anguillae 30C I gave for kidney failure is not going to do a bloody thing for the liver cancer, for which I gave Hydrastis; and Hydrastis isn’t going to antidote the side effects of morphine, for which I gave homeopathic morphine; and so on.
All these issues/complaints are active at once–the kidney failure, the cancer, the effects of morphine…. Then there’s the edema for which you need Apis. And yes, we do have such a thing in homeopathy as “organ affinities”, remedies that have an action on certain organs, the way Serum anguillae has an affinity for the kidneys, Hydrastis for the digestive organs and cancer. Clark said Hydrastis cured more cancer than any other remedy.
Alan: So, even while adhering to classical homeopathy, we should understand that certain remedies have affinities to certain organs and certain systems?
Elaine: Yes, I do believe we have so-called “disease” polychrests that we rarely, if ever, use as constitutional remedies; remedies like Hydrastis, Conium, Kali bich., Phytolacca, Asterias rubens, Secale and so on; so, I do believe there is a kind of homeopathy for illness which is not about taking the constitutional case, per se.