From: Interview with Arthur B. Green, Editor of the homeopathy journal, The Layman Speaks for 41 years – by John Duffy, Martin Kaufman
An Interview with Arthur B. Green, Editor of the homeopathy journal, The Layman Speaks for 41 years
Wow…despite having read so much about homeopathy since 1973, I had never previously heard about or read this interview. And I have to admit to being shocked and amazed that I never previously knew that Arthur Green was the brother of Julia Green (it all makes so much sense!).
However, no one at that time knew that the REAL problem that homeopathy faced was that JD Rockefeller gave away over $500 million during the first 3 decades of the 20th century…and he wanted HALF of his donations to medical institutions to go to homeopathic institutions…but not a dime was ever given. I am now writing on THIS subject…and readers will hear of it in the near future…
Dana Ullman
From: 50 Years Since Liberation: A Case – Francis Treuherz
https://hpathy.com/clinical-cases/50-years-since-liberation-a-case/#comments
Thanks for publishing this case from my past life. I am now retired, age 82 and have closed my website.
Francis Treuherz
From: Partners in Healing with Homeopathy – The Ghana Homeopathy Project – by Jacqueline Smith
Dear Jacqueline,
I thank you, Richard Pitt and the others involved in this wonderful project. Your work helped so many people who had very few resources. You also planted the seeds of homeopathy which will improve the lives of more generations to come.
From: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in a woman of 53 – Dr. Shweta Shah
Very nice case Dr Shweta and congratulations.
Dr Shamprasad Pawase
From: Standardization of the selection of symptoms for homeopathic repertorization according to objective criteria. -Part 2: Illness and emotion
This is beautiful and makes me wonder what other homeopathic treasures we who can’t understand the German language are missing.
Robert Bannan
Philipp Zippermayr Replies:
Dear Robert,
Thank you very much for the kind comment. Regarding the hidden treasures, I would like to point out that I am not a darling of the homeopathic scene in the German-speaking world either. I am 1. a homeopath biologist and 2. I am of the opinion that more and more case studies and more and more new remedies will not get us to where we would like to be. Case studies are OK, but trying to imitate them leads to the danger of prescribing based on the name of a disease.
For me, part 1 of the article is what base camp is for mountaineers: a relatively safe base. However, this assumes that the anamnesis has enough characteristic physical symptoms. At the same time the method is very practical. The prerequisite for its use, the coding according to membership in one, two or three planes A, B and C, was relatively safe for me.
Part 2 of the article describes the dynamic situation of illness. That is the good news. The bad news is that encoding according to dynamic criteria, i.e. (>), () or sometimes like this (), or as socially being lifted off, being only related to oneself, i.e. intraverted (<). For me, it wasn’t just about coding correctly but also about evaluating all similar symptoms equally across the repertory.
This is a Sisyphean task that ultimately cannot be solved. The more you think about a solution, the more it falls apart. As an impulse, the answer is, if he thinks he is noble, he is megalomaniacal. In reflection, however, it can also be an expression of introversion, separation from other people.
I have dynamically encoded all mind symptoms in the ABC file, all modalities in the B file, and all properties in the C file, but do not use this in practice because too many symptoms caused coding problems. In contrast, the assignment of symptoms to the planes of the causal formula, A, B and C, described in Part 1, is comparatively safe. In this way you can put a case together like a building block: The ideal case would be the combination of an AC symptom (psychosomatic) with a BC symptom (body location x + modality). Only two symptoms cover A, B and C. Possibly, for repertorization you may also need a C symptom of the same body location x.
If the location C x is characteristic of the case, if it is therefore the complaint for which the patient came, there is synchronicity of the selected symptoms.
If this combination is possible, you are in the inner circle of the disease process and the other modalities in other areas of the body are of secondary (= tangential) value.
However, the normal case in practice is BC (localization C x + modality B) and C (localization C x). You can now repertorize immediately or use file B and file C as described in the article to try to create the disease message from the meaning of the modalities and the properties of the body symptom.
If you have an idea of the illness message that the body communicates through its symptoms, you can use this to infer the appropriate mental symptom A.
You see, I do not agree with Bönninghausen regarding the modalities here, I prefer Kent’s view and only use the modalities as pure general symptoms in an emergency. This occurs when a small remedy is involved; for a large one, I require that the modality sought as a combination with the local symptom (BC) can also be found in the subrubrics for the local symptom in question.
For restlessness of the hands, sepia should have “restlessness of the hands” and does not need to be confirmed by the general rubric of “restlessness”.
Note: You can require this, but you can’t be sure. The pitfalls of the repertory would be a separate chapter. Finally, I would like to note that I am talking about cases with average symptom patterns. Some cases thwart any strategy due to their lack of symptoms or one-sided selection, so that you have no choice but to rely on keynotes or special symptoms. So that’s my very detailed answer, which is due to your factual comments. Thank you very much for your kind wishes, which I would be very happy to return. I wish you and yours also good luck for the coming new year.
Sincerely
Philipp Zippermayr
From: Impact of Childhood Trauma on Adult Life – Petra Cihlářová
Thank you Petra Cihlářová for these exceptional cases in which your high level skills lead you to the simillimums.
Alan V. Schmukler
From: Standardization of the selection of symptoms for homeopathic repertorization according to objective criteria – Part 1: Beyond gut feeling
by Philipp Zippermayr
I read this article with great interest. Disease symptoms form in combination the now present image of the disease. Only whatever changed since the beginning of this disease and persists is considered part of the disease-symptom-picture, which upon a medicine is chosen according to symptom similitude.
Mind symptoms as an expression of personality and unaltered since the onset of disease do not form part of the disease-symptom picture, as those reflect the normal character of the patient. here the author goes astray when he writes:
“This does not apply to mind symptoms! As an expression of personality, they can also come from the time before the outbreak of the illness, so they do not need to be current.”
Likewise, the cause of the malady does not form part of the disease-symptom-picture. This means that the bruising and pain,swelling etc. a patient experiences after twisting an ankle, these exact individual symptoms are indicative, yet the cause of those is not.
We find rubrics relating to causes, which are clinical rubrics, ie. Arnica never caused a fall during its proving. Remedies listed there have shown in the past curative, so it may be useful to confirm a selection, however I have cured aftereffects of falls with remedies solely determined by disease-symptom-similitude and not listed in relevant rubrics.
The above two chapters bring me to the conclusion that this new system is of no advantage for the homeopathic prescriber as it,based on a disease theory, mixes unaltered expressions of disease with theoretical deductive thoughts.
For simplicity I refer to C.M. Boger’s little table for arrangement of disease-symptoms:
MODALITIES:
CAUSATION. TIME. TEMPERATURE. WEATHER. OPEN AIR. POSTURE.
MOTION. EATING AND DRINKING. SLEEP. IF ALONE. PRESSURE. TOUCH.
DISCHARGES.
MIND:
IRRITABILITY. SADNESS. FEAR. PLACIDITY.
SENSATIONS:
BURNING. CRAMPING. CUTTING. BURSTING. SORENESS. THROBBING. THIRST
OBJECTIVE ASPECT:
DEMEANOR. NERVOUS EXCITABILITY.
FACIAL EXPRESSION. TORPOR. SECRETIONS. COLOR. ODOR.
PART AFFECTED: Organs. Right. Left.
Hans Weitbrecht
