In this episode, we’ll be fielding questions on the Sensation Method and other areas of homeopathy.
_________________________
Plants That Act Like Animals
Elaine, on another note, I am currently reading Sankaran’s book on his Sensation Method. I think it is a brilliant piece of work.
That’s what everyone seems to think….
I haven’t completed it yet, but I believe his theory is that we can narrow down the choice of remedy by matching the patient’s symptoms with symptoms from plant, animal or mineral kingdoms.
The problem is, you’ve got plants that act like animals–Stramonium and Belladonna, for example. (Belladonna actually barks!) Nux vomica is very competitive, aggressive and jealous–and that’s a plant, and then there’s the fact that since humans are animals anyway, we’re all going to behave like animals to some degree!
So far I have learned that people needing a remedy in the plant kingdom are sensitive, those in the animal kingdom are “competing or fighting for survival”. I haven’t reached the mineral kingdom yet, so I don’t know what the keynote symptoms are.
They’re structured, they make lists, they like geometric patterns, they’re logical and orderly, go from beginning to end, don’t start in the middle, methodical–but you know what? So does Nux vomica, which is in the plant family! Nux is very efficient, very logical! I think this method is somewhat of a distraction. You have here a science–homeopathy–that most of us have trouble with even under the best of circumstances! No one is sure, half the time, if they’re supposed to be giving a constitutional remedy, a pathology remedy, or what…there’s a great deal of uncertainty, and into that “ball of confusion” is thrown a whole new method which calls for a different line of questioning with the idea that the person himself, in due time, will reveal the remedy to you by his choice of words and hand movements! (My question would be, “Which remedy?” The remedy for the flu he complained about? The remedy layer underneath the flu? The layer he came into the world with? There’s a presumption here that the patient needed a remedy at birth and needs the same remedy now! Vithoulkas says this accounts for only 1 in 300 cases–where a single remedy was needed for the person’s whole life.)
Presumably, before one goes off on a tangent, one should have both feet solidly on the ground in order to safely “branch out”. Homeopathy historian, Julian Winston, put it in the following way in an editorial:
“In the best of all worlds, we would have good homeopathic education. After four years of study and a few years of practice, one would be able to take this experience and add to it with graduate study. And it is at this level that most of the seminars I have seen offered today are aimed.
The problem is that these seminars have no level of prerequisite study. Those who attend are a mixed group—from new students to long-time practitioners. Although the teachers know the basics, that is not what they are typically teaching. They are teaching at the postgraduate level, and knowledge of principles is assumed.” (Homeopathy Today, April, 2001)
Anyone should be able to spot a clear Gelsemium flu: apathetic, chilly, shivering, weak, dull, dizzy, sleepy, headachy, thirstless…. This is a 10 minute case! Do you see how the Sensation Method distracts from solving this case? I’ve had homeopaths tell me that they don’t take acute cases because they’re doing the Sensation Method! Homeopathy is for suffering. It’s for diseases and emergencies, and coincidently, this is where homeopathy shines! It got its reputation through its success in treating epidemic disease! Not that Sankaran doesn’t make some very astute observations, I don’t mean to say that he doesn’t! And I don’t mean to say that I haven’t enjoyed reading his books, because I have. But, don’t let this distract you from what you’ve learned about how to take a case!
I just wanted to hear your thoughts on this. And also on Sankaran’s Sensation Method — do you like it or do you think it is bogus?
Well, I’ve read it.
Nowhere does he mention the importance of etiology–“ailments/from”–a lot of our prescriptions are based on “ailments from”, as you know. What about modalities? Gone! And of course, if you read his cases, you’ll notice that no one ever gets Lycopodium, Pulsatilla, Nux vomica, Phosphorus, Sulphur, Rhus tox or any of the other remedies that have been common in homeopathy up to now; instead, people are receiving remedies like Bung-c. and Dendro-p., and since YOU would NEVER have been able to come up with those prescriptions, you can’t argue with him! He’s always right! What are you going to say? “Oh, I disagree with that Bung-c. prescription!” You can’t! You can’t disagree because you don’t have the case you would have taken–you don’t have the etiology, the modalities, the concomitants, the color and odor of discharges, the food and drink desires, the aggravation time and so on. So you have no way of saying, “This case sounds more like Lycopodium to me due to the 4-8 pm aggravation time and the craving for sweets,” because you don’t have a standard case! All you can do is be in awe! (“Wow, he is so smart! I never would have come up with that remedy!”) But then my question is: How many patients who walk in the door need Bung-c and Dendro-p? If the answer is, truthfully, “Hardly anyone”, then why are we doing this? Are people going to miss prescriptions for Rhus tox and Gelsemium because they’ve stopped asking the standard questions and instead are asking only:
“What is being sick like for you?”
“I feel just terrible because I’m missing work.”
“Missing work, eh? Tell me about missing work, what’s the sensation of that?”
With this line of questioning, you will never find out that the patient is thirstless, sleepy, dizzy, chilly and has other keynotes of Gelsemium, and it’s almost like you’re saying, “We don’t care about that, we’re onto bigger things!” You may wind up giving Bryonia because, “The patient said he was missing work, all he talked about was work!” But a standard case taking would have told you that the patient had NO confirmatories for Bryonia whatsoever! No thirst, no aggravation from motion….
Most of these practitioners believe you are not supposed to ask questions, that the patient should just be allowed to talk. You might interject only, “What was that like? What does that feel like? Why are you gesturing with your hand like that? What does that mean? What do you associate with that? Say the first word that comes to your mind.” This is certainly not appropriate questioning in any acute case! Why do I keep bringing up acutes? Because Sankaran has proclaimed that it is now IN the acute that the “real” remedy can finally be discerned most easily! So, everything you knew about acute prescribing, throw it out, because we’re only using it to find the constitutional remedy now!
If people would read his cases with a little more detachment (instead of the awe usually reserved for The Beatles and Elvis Presley), they would notice numerous inconsistencies, things that don’t make any sense. For example, you might find yourself questioning: “Why did the practitioner dismiss the patient’s statement about feeling lost in the ocean, it sounded really significant to me; why wasn’t that followed up on?” In fact, it’s so arbitrary–what you do and don’t follow up on! You can easily find yourself at sea, literally, following false leads–which even they agree is an ever-present possibility! And it’s no wonder–this system cannot be taught! So much relies on the practitioner’s intuition and interpretation of words and phrases the patient decides to use.
Even if you think I’m over-simplifying this method, I do know one thing, this is not the way to do acute prescribing; plus, there is the unspoken premise in this method that constitutionally, the patient has needed the same remedy his whole life and even now, regardless of what’s wrong with him. I always sum up the Sensation method like this: Your Phosphorus patient with a Gelsemium flu needs Phosphorus! Ha! Good luck, if that’s what you think.
You know, when parents bring their child to you with a fever and sore throat, they don’t want any nonsense, they don’t want to hear, “I don’t take acutes,” and they don’t want to hear, “Here’s his constitutional remedy, come back in a month.” That happened to me once. I took Shana to a homeopath because she had a terrible cough. The homeopath gave her Tuberculinum and told her to come back in a month because, presumably, it was her constitutional remedy, which I guess he thought would cure whatever she had. I said, “A month??? This is an ACUTE. She’s going to be better in a month ANYWAY!!!!!” Maybe something I said resonated with him because he sat back down with her, retook her case, found out the cough was better for cold drinks and prescribed Causticum, it worked in less than 24 hours and the cough was gone! If you can’t do this for a patient? You’re really pretty useless.
**********************************************
Why Did You Start The Case With 12C?
Elaine, I just read “Hell Is Right Here”
https://hpathy.com/clinical-cases/hell-is-right-here-bobbys-case/
and I wanna know the reason why you started the case with 12C and not 200C or 1M, due to the fact that:
1. it is more dynamic in nature and
2. the boy had good vitality and was young which goes with a higher potency well and
3. high potencies act deeper, longer and are more apt to cure.
So, I just want to know the philosophy?
Hi and thanks for your question. I know and understand why people believe that giving the high potency is going to work soooooooo much better in mental and emotional cases, while the lower potencies are sooooooo much more appropriately used in physical complaints; I realize that this is the prevailing view; but actually, it is not true, there is no correlation in that way; first of all because this whole idea of “deep” and “shallow” is an abstract concept that is not measurable in any way, nor observable. The potencies have to be understood as “strong” and “weak”. It’s like the difference between a tap and a push. If someone pushes you lightly, you can push back lightly. If someone is pushing you hard, you have to push back hard. An illness that comes on like gangbusters needs a remedy potency with a lot of “push”! You need a 200C for that, like a flu that comes on suddenly, a high fever that comes on suddenly, you need a remedy with a lot of “punch”, like Belladonna 200C. Do you REALLY want to give Belladonna 6C for a high fever? Are you really comfortable with that? Does that seem appropriate to you? I can tell you right now, I have seen 30C’s fail in acutes, then the same remedy is given in 200C and it works! Why? The 30C wasn’t strong enough! You have to meet power with power!
Now, look at this case you’ve commented on, Bobby’s case (“Hell Is Right Here”). Look at what happened here with no aggravation: Within days of starting Anacardium 12C daily in water with 10 succussions before each dose, in maybe two or three days, he is already feeling significantly better! Now, you give a 200C and what is likely to happen? Either an aggravation or generally nothing because you have to wait and see. The homeopath tells his patient to come back in a month because there’s the expectation that it might take that long for the 200C to show some effect! This is very frustrating for the patient, all this waiting; and then what happens? He gets better but doesn’t correlate it with the remedy because it was so long ago. So he says, “I just got better by myself.” Later, when the potency wears off and needs repeating, he may not come back to you!
Also, in Bobby’s case, he needed two inter-current remedies, one of them stopped the awful sweating and gum disease. How can you give an inter-current remedy if you’re being held hostage by a high potency? “I’d like to give you Nitricum Acidum for your gum disease, but, it could interfere with our constitutional remedy; so, no can do.” I didn’t have that problem! I just stopped Anacardium 12C, gave Nitric acid 30C, then went back to Anacardium when Nitric acid was no longer needed, and we kept moving forward.
Now here’s another problem. You give a 200C, and after a week goes by, nothing’s happened. The patient forgets and eats a mint or drinks coffee. What has happened? Was the remedy “antidoted”, sight-unseen? Should the dose be repeated? There’s no way to know, it’s all in the abstract! But with daily dosing, you always know what’s going on in the case! If your last dose was possibly antidoted, well, you’re going to take it again anyway!
What is the 200C potency really good for? Acutes! That’s where you’re going to see dramatic results! You can see a symptom or complaint go away, Wham! just like that! In minutes, or even seconds! If you hurt yourself or burn yourself, you take your burn remedy 200C, seconds later, the pain is gone! You give the same remedy to a chronic patient? He either gets an aggravation, or nothing happens! You don’t believe it? I have a client, “Joan”, who took Sepia 200 for her post-partum complaints; it worked fine, until it stopped working. It was then repeated, and nothing happened. Now what? I prescribed Sepia 6C in water three times a day, five succussions before each dose and here’s what her husband said:
Joan is on Sepia 6C. She missed a few doses in between, but she is mostly taking it 3 times per day in water. Her mental picture improved pretty much from the next day.
The next day!!!!! Isn’t that why people are giving 200C’s because they want their patient to be better the next day? Fast? But, paradoxically, just the opposite happens! Again, here is the rule: Potency is a function of how much power you need to fight off a complaint. Power has to be met with power. A recent acute, like a flu or a burn or a blunt trauma, needs a medium-to-high potency. A chronic case which is moderate in its effects calls for a lower potency given daily in water with 5-or-so succussions before each dose. The advantage of lower potencies is that they can be prescribed daily, and if an acute arises during treatment, the remedy can be stopped and your acute remedy in 30C or 200C can be prescribed to neutralize the acute, after which you can return to your chronic remedy, easy-peasy!
I have seen cases cured with 200C repeated three times a day in dry doses, 6 globules each time.
I hate to seem insensitive but, Stop doing that!!!!! You know how we conduct provings? We give the exact same potency over and over again until symptoms break out; is that what you’re trying to do? 200C? Six pellets? Three times a day? Does that sound like homeopathy’s motto, “The Minimum Dose”? What’s “minimum” about that? That’s “The Maximum Dose!” That’s allopathy’s motto! Let’s see briefly what Hahnemann has to say about that in the Organon:
Aphorism 129: Since you can’t know who’s sensitive to remedies and who’s not, start with a small dose of medicine for everybody and increase it from day to day where appropriate and necessary.
Aphorism 161: No one should allow an aggravation in chronic disease.
Aphorism 246, footnote a: Administer the medicine starting with the lowest degrees.
Aphorism 249, footnote b: You’d never need to antidote a remedy if you would only start with the smallest possible dose.
Aphorism 253, footnote a: The signs of improvement on the mental and emotional plane can only be realized if the dose is small enough. A large dose acts too violently and initially disturbs the mind and emotions.
Aphorism 276: If the potency is too high, especially if it’s the right remedy, the more harm it can do.
Aphorism 282: If your remedy caused an aggravation, you gave too large a dose.
Finally, give your patients the following warning:
Any striking improvement precludes further dosing for as long as the improvement lasts, and, any aggravation precludes further dosing as well. Stop and wait, and if need be, antidote.
See Diane Fuller’s “The Aggravation Zapper”:
https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/the-aggravation-zapper/
***************************************
Where’s The Science?
Elaine, I’m wondering what your opinion is about why homeopathy hasn’t held up to the vigorous scrutiny of scientific research.
Oh my. Oh dear. Oh my. The statement, “There are no studies,” is nothing but a mantra that keeps repeating itself but has no basis in fact! I suppose if I had to just cite the most recent evidence, it would be the report by the Swiss Government on homeopathy. Alan Schmukler mentions it in his editorial in the March “H4E”. To quote Alan:
“The skeptics should also examine the recent 300 page report on homeopathy by the Swiss Government. This exhaustive seven year study is the most in-depth review of homeopathy ever conducted by a government. The Swiss team evaluated all the research from double-blind and placebo controlled trials, actual clinical effectiveness, safety and finally, cost-effectiveness. The study authors concluded that homeopathy is effective, sometimes more so than conventional treatment, free of side effects and economical. They recommended that homeopathy be covered by Switzerland’s national health insurance program. (For Dana Ullman’s review of the Swiss study : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/homeopathic-medicine-_b_1258607.html )”
**************************************************
What Remedies Do I Need For Acutes?
Hi ELaine,
As for me, my cold seems to be increasing / symptoms coming back this evevning. I am not sure if it is because i didn’t take the 4 doses of Arsenicum 30C today.
Probably.
I was out and saw your email only after returning. I will take anther dose before I sleep and in the morning. Will let you know if it is still bad or gets better.
If you can get a hold of Arsenicum 200C, that would be a good idea. I learned a long time ago to buy all the acute remedies in ascending potencies–30C, 200C, 1M. There are some I have up to 50M, like Arnica. The thing is, you don’t want to be caught in a position where your remedy stops working and you have nothing to go up to! 30C is the low-end of your high potencies. Most of the time it will work beautifully and cure the whole case, but not always. Often a 200C right at the beginning would have stopped the acute in its tracks but I have seen cases where it has also aggravated and needed to be antidoted. So, although 30C may be good at the start, you should have a 200C there just to be on the safe side if the 30C stops working. You don’t want an acute getting away from you! Often, just when you think a virus is under control or gone, you let your guard down, stop dosing and here it comes again! Before you know it, you’re out at sea without a compass, being tossed and turned by the waves with nothing to grab on to! You give the remedy again and it doesn’t work!
Here are the most commonly used Disease and Injury Polychrests and the potencies I have them in (P.S. Just because I have these potencies doesn’t mean you have to buy them, and it doesn’t mean I bought them all at once either. It just shows what my experience has led me to buy down through the years):
Allium cepa–30, 200, 1M
Antimonium tart–30, 200, 1M, 10M
Apis–30, 200, 1M, 10M
Argent-nit–30, 200, LM-1
Arnica–30, 200, 1M, 10M, 50M
Arsenicum–30, LM-1, 2 & 3; 200, 1M, 10M, 50M, CM
Baptisia–30, 200
Belladonna–30, 200, 1M, 10M
Bryonia–30, 200, 1M
Calendula–30, 200, 1M
Cantharis–30, 200, 10M
Carbo veg–30, 200, 1M
Causticum–30, LM-1, 200, 1M
Chamomilla–30, 200
China–30, 200, 1M
Cocculus–30, 200
Coffea–30, 200
Colocynth–30, 200, 1M
Ferrum phos–30, 200
Gelsemium–30, 200, 1M, 10M
Hepar sulph–30, 200, 1M, 10M, 50M, CM
Hypericum–30, LM-1, 200, 1M, 10M, 50M
Ignatia–30, 200, 1M, LM-1
Influenzinum–30, 200
Ipecac–30, 200
Kali bich–30, LM-1, 200, 1M, 10M
Lachesis–30, LM-1, 200, 1M, 10M
Ledum–30, 200, 1M, 10M
Lycopodium–30, 200, LM-1, 1M, 10M
Mag-phos–30, 200, 1M
Mercury–30, LM-1, 200, 1M, 10M
Nat-mur–30, 200
Nat-sulph–30, 200
Nitric acid–30, LM-1, 200, 1M, 10M
Nux vomica–30, 200, 1M, LM-3
Phosphorus–30, LM-1, 2, 3 & 4; 200, 1M, 10M
Podophyllum–30, 200
Pulsatilla–30, LM-1, 200, 1M, 10M
Pyrogen–30, 200, 1M, 10M, 50M, CM
Rhus tox–30, 200, 1M
Ruta–30, 200
Sepia–30, 200
Silica–30, LM-1, 200, 1M, 10M
Spongia–30, 200
Staphysagria–30, 200, 10M, 50M
Sulphur–30, 200
Symphytum–30, 200
Urtica urens–30
Veratrum alb–30, LM-1, 2, 3 & 4; 200, 1M, 10M
Zingiber–30, LM-1 & 2
Now, why do I have some of these in such high potencies? Because the conditions they’re noted for can easily get out of hand or become life-and-death situations. For example, Hypericum in spinal injuries and spinal tap headaches, or crushing injuries to the fingers and toes; Cantharis in burns, Apis in anaphylaxis, Hepar Sulph in painful abscesses, Staphysagria in incision pains and sensitive teeth, Phosphorus in pneumonia, Mercury and Nitric Acid in gum infections and abscesses, same for Pyrogen also, post-surgery fevers go for Pyrogen and the flu as well; Gelsemium–our great fear, fever and virus remedy as well as stage-fright; Colocynth for pains that cause a person to bend over double. Zingiber is a great remedy for diarrhea from bad water. Pulsatilla is great for digestive complaints from fatty meals and too much ice cream. Antimonium tart is our drowning remedy and coughs that are loose but hard to raise. Belladonna–high fevers and any inflammatory situation where there’s a lot of heat, redness, seems urgent or severe. Arsenicum–food poisoning, flu, end of life, cancer pains…. Veratrum alb. for fainting or faint-feeling with cold sweat and purging and desire for ice cold drinks despite being chilly; in other words, patient is collapsed.
The point being that gradually, over time, you should try to acquire these remedies in more than just the 30C potency. Do I have any of these in lower potencies? Yes; but in an acute, you’d want to start with a 30C and nothing lower, as acutes tend to be powerful, forceful situations and you have to meet power with power. You can’t fend off a lion with a wet noodle. And speaking of noodles, I have to get back to the kitchen now.
*********************************************
Is Rhus tox a Person?
I am very confused by this Rhus tox article. Is Rhus tox a medicine, a treatment of sorts, or is it a state of being. Is Rhus toxicodendron a person??? Was this a tongue in cheek?? I am trying to look up homeopathic treatment for restless leg syndrome and came across this and now am even more confused. Is this supposed to be understandable for the average Joe or is this written in some type of doctorate language that the average Joe would not understand?? Maybe needs to be classified or filed somewhere else on a website possibly??
To your question, is Rhus tox a person? Yes, and you’ve seen these people! They can’t be still! If they try to sit still, they stiffen up and MUST move; they are much better for motion, worse for being still. They are better for anything that helps with movement–such as warmth and massage–and worse for influences that would slow them down, such as anything cold–cold weather, cold applications, cold bathing, etc. You may see this presentation best in athletes. If you give them the remedy Rhus tox 30C, they will finally be able to relax and settle down.
*******************************************
Why Shouldn’t Everyone Get A Saliva Remedy?
Thanks, Elaine. Here’s another question: If making a remedy out of anything (in my case, out of my saliva) is so effective,why not prescribe that first before anything else in cases when something (like saliva or a medication, etc.) can be used?
I will definitely make a remedy out of the offending substance as soon as I hear that that’s the reason the person is sick! For instance, when I visited the Virgin Islands many years ago, the tap water was repeatedly making me sick–I only wish I had known about homeopathy back then, I could have made a remedy out of the water! So much suffering can be eliminated by knowing how to make your own remedy!
I’m not sure that spitting into a cup and making a remedy out of it always works, but did work for me once when I had eaten bad food from a restaurant.
It would save the patient money and take any of the guess work out of picking the right remedy…?
You’re right in the sense that taking a 2 hour constitutional case is not always appropriate for what’s wrong with a person, but making a remedy out of saliva isn’t a cure-all, it’s not a sure-thing, not a guarantee, not something that always works, that you should just automatically go to because it trumps everything.
*************************************************
What’s The Constitutional Remedy All About?
Elaine, could you tell me how it can help me to know my constitutional remedy? Have you worked on many constitutional cases? How has it helped people…just for example….
Regards
Margaret
Hi Margaret. The constitutional case presumes that there is no physical pathology demanding immediate attention and that what seems to be wrong is mostly on the mental/emotional plane; for example, the person might suffer from shyness, anxiety about appearing in public, inability to stand up for herself, easily taken advantage of, can’t relax to get to sleep at night, feels depressed and lonely, too proud to ask for help or support…. These are the kinds of issues a constitutional remedy addresses, as well as when the pathology lacks characteristic symptoms but the mental-emotionals are very clear.
With the right constitutional remedy, a person has more confidence, more energy, less prone to procrastination, lives in the moment, doesn’t care so much what other people think and generally feels more capable.
Normally when a person comes to a homeopath, it’s because of a physical complaint. Something is wrong: sore throat, hemorrhoids, a virus, etc. Usually when these things are cleared up, the person is so happy, he doesn’t stick around for his constitutional case to be taken, he’s just happy to be back to his old self, however flawed that may be!
Now, here’s the other thing: Often there is more than one remedy needed! Not at the same time though. Cases often have “layers”. I always ask for a time-line in my questionnaire. It means I need to know the life-changing events or traumas in the person’s life, the cause, and their age at the time.
For instance, a person may start out life as a Phosphorus (out-going, sociable, desiring company and love) and then her parents get a divorce, the child loses the father and has to move to a new city. Now the child is no longer a Phosphorus. She has acquired a “stiff-upper-lip”, has become studious, and stopped being fun-loving and seeking out company. She is now a Nat-mur (homeopathic salt). Then in college, she tries so hard to get high honors (like all Nat-mur’s, she thinks that if she’s perfect, she’ll be loved), so she stays up very late at night studying, consuming a lot of coffee to stay awake, so now she’s got permanent coffee nerves, insomnia and is nervous and jittery. It is here that she comes to see the homeopath. She’s going to tell the homeopath that she has insomnia, that she can’t fall asleep at night, she can’t turn her mind off. The homeopath is going to know nothing about her Nat-mur state or Phosphorus layer underneath unless the homeopath asks for a time-line, wherein he or she will learn about the divorce, the move to another city, the forsaken feeling, etc. The homeopath will see that there is a Nat-mur layer underneath Coffea. But is Coffea the “constitutional” remedy? Or is it Nat-mur? Or is it Phosphorus?
You can call it “constitutional” or whatever you want; but, it would be inappropriate to give Nat-mur when the most recent symptoms lead to Coffea! Remember Hering’s Law? Healing takes place in reverse order! That means we must give Coffea first! After that, Nat-mur will come to the surface; and after Nat-mur is given, Phosphorus will come to the surface. So you can see that treating the person’s constitutional state is a long process–sometimes. Not necessarily all the time. Sometimes a person is the same remedy their whole life, they just go through deeper and deeper stages of that remedy.
For example, there’s the healthy Sulphur and the pathological Sulphur. The healthy Sulphur is adventuresome, curious, fun-loving, ambitious, confident and active. He’s warm and personable–outgoing. They don’t have time to be fussy about the way they look or the appearance of their room because they’re too busy being active and creative. Now let’s say this very ambitious Sulphur suffers from one set-back after another. He becomes discouraged, lazy, loses his ambition. Now he’s a home-body with a scraggly beard and long hair; depressed and philosophical, chilly, no ambition, irritable, hides away, becomes a recluse; sits in his room reading and theorizing; doesn’t want company. He may think he’s sooooo much better than everyone else and that the world is stupid for not appreciating his vast knowledge. Morons! This is when you see him; maybe he’s come to you because of an itchy rash–which Sulphurs are prone to. One dose of Sulphur and his whole life is changed! He won’t need two or three remedies, his “ailments from failure” didn’t send him into a new remedy picture like Lycopodium or Aurum. He’s still Sulphur, but a “deeper” Sulphur than when he started out.
Did I answer your question?
Yes you did very well 🙂
****************************************************************
What’s the Importance of Etiology?
Dear Elaine.
There are scattered here and there examples of etiology-based prescriptions and keynote-based prescriptions in your articles. If you write an extended article to explain this, it will be a great asset to us novices. Regards. Saleem
Dear Saleem,
In every case, we hope to find an etiology–the cause of the complaint. That’s because once we know the cause, the remedy becomes clear. For example, we may see a person lying on the floor. We don’t know what the heck happened! We ask, “What happened here?” A witness says, “He was hit by lightning!” Now we know the remedy! It’s Phosphorus! Phosphorus is our premier “ailments from electricity” remedy. If we were told, “He was run over by a car!” the remedy would be Arnica–our main remedy for “ailments from blunt trauma”. If we were told, “He fainted from bad news!” the remedy would most likely be Ignatia, one of our main remedies for “ailments from bad news.” Ignatia faints easily and is very emotional. Now, three different remedies but the same presentation! What was the difference in all three cases? The reason why the person was lying there! If the reason can make that much of a difference in what remedy you pick, imagine how wrong our prescriptions must be if all we do is take down the symptoms but have no idea WHY the patient has them!
Now the other issue you brought up was keynotes of remedies. You know, the “ailments from” factor or “etiology” often IS a keynote of the remedy! “Ailments from blunt trauma” IS a keynote of Arnica! “Fainting from bad news” IS a keynote of Ignatia! In general, the idea is this: When you take a case, common information isn’t going to help you. Writing down things like: Runny Nose, Headache, Loss of Appetite, etc. are of such a general, non-descript nature, they’re going to lead to considering practically every remedy in the Materia Medica! How is that going to help you? What, then, is going to narrow down your choices to one or two remedies? A keynote! When you hear a remedy keynote, you are on solid ground! If I say to a homeopath, “Depression after head injury!” a lot of you are going to chime in right away with, “Natrum sulph!” Yes, this is a keynote of Nat-sulph. So is “headache after head injury”. So what it means is, there’s no getting away from studying your remedies and learning their keynotes. Keynotes are what the remedy is known for. For instance, what are the keynotes of London? Buckingham Palace, the guards, the queen, the Thames, Big Ben, #10 Downing Street…right? Now, I’ll give you some keynotes and you tell me what I’m referring to: the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, the Art Museum, the Franklin Institute, the University of Pennsylvania….Who said Philadelphia?
I did! That’s where I live!
Shana, are you crashing my article? Be useful and get me a picture of Philadelphia!
Check!
This is what you wanted, right?
OK, OK, my mistake, a Philly Cheesesteak!
And what about Lorenzo’s?
Where you go to eat pizza?
Yes! Lorenzo’s on 9th Street!
Are you happy now? There’s George! Did you know George and I are the same age? OK, so I think we’ve exhausted the “keynotes” of Philadelphia now! Good-bye, Shana; off with you!
So, likewise, there are keynotes of remedies, such that when we hear them, we breathe a sigh of relief because now we can solve the case! What are the keynotes of Pulsatilla? Ailments from fatty rich foods, ailments from ice cream, cheese, etc.; a desire for creamy foods, a desire for fresh air, worse warm stuffy rooms, fear of abandonment, changeable symptoms, cries easily, easily reassured, desire for butter, desire for company, desire for sympathy, bland creamy yellow-green discharges, loose coughs, evening aggravation, and yielding disposition.
OK, I hope that answers your question because it’s way past my bed time and I haven’t even had my yogurt and raspberries yet!
________________________________
Elaine Lewis, D.Hom., C.Hom.
Elaine takes online cases! Write to her, visit her website:
Dear Elaine,
This article of yours is excellent, and your description of Sulphur was particularly usefull to me. Now I am almost sure I am that ragged philosopher, especially due to the simptoms “hides away and becomes a recluse”. When I stop taking bath and become chilly (I am hot as hell), I’ll be 100% sure.
Thank you so much!
🙂
Why this lady misleads patients and this is not a first time?
http://forum.hpathy.com/forum/homeopathic-discussion/somthing-very-wrong-with-these-answers/#p3722
I think that she might be a bit uncomfortable with other successful homeopaths…Take a look at this months solution to the case: creeping sore throat/Elaine, and she ends up in Ignatia. Of course, homeopaths know that symptoms that require Ignatia should have ailments from grief, shock…Nowhere does the patient say she has grief or suffers from shock. The whole analysis of the quiz looks as if it is very meticulous, and with all the fine-prints, but for the wrong product..Correct house number, but wrong street. I think she should master the basics, and then probably will realize the merits of other great masters.
Who taught you all of this, Smith? Are you seriously a Homeopath?
Ignatia is a major polycrest and covers a whole lot of pathologies from suppurated tonsils to appendicitis to flu to sticking pains in hypogastrium and inguinal region and many more. And none of the pathologies I mention need to have come up in response to grief or shock. You know that is precisely the problem with you sensation guys. You don’t care about PROVINGS. You give remedies that have not been proved in flights of fancy and do not care to go through the provings of well-proved remedies.
I must say this was one of the most hilarious comments I have come across in a long long time.
Paradoxical or contradictions due to intense grief indicates Ignatia. Not otherwise. Of course if you are amused of this statement, you can laugh, roar or beat you chest as much as you want. Then, please contemplate.
Really? You’re saying that you can’t give Ignatia without the Ailments From Grief? I did not know that…. So this means you can’t give Arnica without Ailments From Blunt Trauma, and you can’t give Aconite without Ailments from cold dry winds, and you can’t give Nat-sulph without Ailments from Head Injury, and you can’t give Pulsatilla without Ailments from Abandonment. I had no idea! And I didn’t know that I was uncomfortable with other successful homeopaths either, so, all in all, this has been quite a revelation!
The problem with current homepaths are that most of them are computers. They match rubrics and symptoms. Please look up the botanics of St Ignatiu’s bean. Please learn what this shrub does. Learn how this medicine has been used in herbal remedies. Without this knowledge, a remedy is just collection of provings. Study the contradictory nature of a person due to intense grief. Simply because a person tells semething contradictory/paradoxical does not mean he is to be given this remedy. Thats ridiculous. If all that was required is matching of symptoms (without understanding the remedy), then I will consult a computer. No need for human beings.
Thank you, Elaine. Your articles are always welcome because they teach a lot about about the basics (“The devil is in the details”). I hope you write down, ,some day, a series of lessons on Homeopathy.
Thank you, Roberto; but, I have a lot to learn about Ignatia first!
Smith A. Said: ‘Paradoxical or contradictions due to intense grief indicates Ignatia. Not otherwise.
Of course if you are amused of this statement, you can laugh, roar or beat you chest as much as you want. Then, please contemplate.’
Surabhi replies:
1. Wrong. Ignatia, like any other remedy, is indicated when the totality of Characteristic Symptoms meets that of the Remedy as brought out in the remedy. (Organon 147, 153, 154). I would like to draw particular attention to Aph 154. The essense of 154 is, “The most suitable homeopathy remedy is the one that has in its symptom set the maximum number of characteristic symptoms with the greatest similarity to the disease symptom”. It means, once you have ironed out the striking, exceptional, unusual, and odd (CHARACTERISTIC) signs and symptoms(Aph 153, Hering’s Intro to Guiding Symptoms, Aph 152), you have to find a remedy which has the closest resemblance to those in its symptoms with the disease.
After many years of practice, Dr. J T Kent stated that he regarded Aph 153 to be the most vital point in the practice of Homeopathic medicine.
Also, attend to Aph 156, “…it is almost impossible for the symptoms of the medicine and those of the disease to cover one another as exactly as two congruent triangles”. That is why we seek the SIMILAR remedy.
THERE IS NO WAY FOR FINDING A HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY OTHER THAN THE ONE MENTIONED ABOVE.
2. Have a look at the following quotes from past masters and one from Sankaran himself:
Homeopathy refuses to reveal its secret to the casual inquirer – Dr. M. L. Dhawale
The way to study the materia medica is to study it. The way to teach it, is to teach it. If we can remember the time when we tackled algebra or geometry or German, we will remember that we had to do more than merely read it before we mastered it. The facts of the materia medica are there and can be mastered only by study, and we must each do it in our individual method of work. – Dr. H. C. Allen
For a long time I hesitated to write a book on remedies because I am well aware of the dangers inherent in such an undertaking. In the first place, there is a strong possibility that the reader, esp. if he is a beginner in the field, might become fixed on these remedy pictures and forget that EVERY REMEDY HAS A WIDER RANGE AND GREATER SCOPE than ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL CAN SEE AND DESCRIBE. Not realizing that these pictures represent ONLY ONE VERSION, ONLY ONE VIEW of the remedy, he MIGHT WRONGLY IMAGINE that he has seen the WHOLE. – Dr. Rajan Sankaran, Introduction to ‘THE SOUL OF REMEDIES’
So, why I am telling you all this? It is to drive home the point that such remedy pictures as you give tells you just one side of the story. It gives you just one picture which is NEVER COMPREHENSIVE. And all masters who have given us such fine Remedy Pictures, including Drs. Kent, Borland, Blackie and Dr. Sankaran himself attest to this fact. What you mention covers a miniscule part of the scope of Ignatia – it is just the tip of the ICEBERG. This is the picture you get from reading Kent’s lectures, Allen’s Keynotes and GV’s Essense of the Remedy. However, as mentioned before, it is not the full picture.
3. To understand the picture of Ignatia better, what about consulting the original provings in MMP, Allen’s Encyclopaedia or even the masterful descriptions in Farrington’s, Lippe’s and even Roger Morrison’s MMs? But that is a lot of effort, isn’t it? However, I can tell you that the effort is much rewarding.
Two interesting facts regarding this magic remedy (both independent of the etiology of Grief):
– Only two Homeopathic remedies have been proved to be curative in Bubonic Plague – Ignatia and Anthracinum
– It is a master remedy for suppurative tonsils when the pathology presents as a one-sided disease
– Drs. Knerr and Edmund Carleton write of Ignatia highly for cases of perforated appendix. In fact, Dr. Carleton, arguable one of the greatest Homeopath Surgeons of all times, used Ignatia as a specific for Appendicitis and claims that all cases he used the remedy in were saved from the surgeon’s knife!
In fine, it is one of the most potent Homeopathic remedies against infections and sepsis.
“Only two Homeopathic remedies have been proved to be curative in Bubonic Plague – Ignatia and Anthracinum”. Ha, since when did homeopathy start treating “diseases”? So all cases of Bubonic plague can be treated with these two remedies?
ACHAYAN said: “Only two Homeopathic remedies have been proved to be curative in Bubonic Plague – Ignatia and Anthracinum”. Ha, since when did homeopathy start treating “diseases”? So all cases of Bubonic plague can be treated with these two remedies?
Surabhi replies: In response to your first point, Homeopathy always treated ‘diseases’. It’s basis…look at Aph 2 and read the words in BOLD loudly: § 2 The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and ANNIHILATION of the DISEASE in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles.
Response to your second question – Not necessarily. The records of Homeopathic treatment of Plague point strongly to extremely successful records of cure with these two diseases. It was most likely because most cases during those epidemics fitted the bill. In a future case, the EPIDEMIC TOTALITY (CHARACTERISTIC SYMPTOMS in most cases of the Epidemic) will decide the remedy. I mentioned this fact to illustrate the effectiveness of Ignatia in cases characterised by bad infection.
Some typos in last paragraph…read it as under:
“Response to your second question – Not necessarily. The records of Homeopathic treatment of Plague point strongly to high success rate with these two remedies. It was most likely because most cases during those epidemics fitted the bill. In a future case, the EPIDEMIC TOTALITY (CHARACTERISTIC SYMPTOMS in most cases of the Epidemic) will decide the remedy. I mentioned this fact to illustrate the effectiveness of Ignatia in cases characterized by bad infection.”
In response to your first point, Homeopathy always treated ‘diseases’
Please read aloud the follwing sentences written by Dr Manish Bhatia…
“Now we move on to the next part – ‘annihilation of the disease‘. Many people will say – ‘Hey! Hahnemann is speaking about treating diseases. What happened to the holistic approach and the individualization?’ But Hahnemann always puts qualifiers at just the right places for such people. Here also he says ‘annihilation of the disease in its whole extent‘. What is this ‘whole extent’? For Hahnemann ‘disease’ was not an entity, it was a process. And curing a disease means, reversing the whole process in such a way that not just the infection or the pathology disappears but the patient gets back to his/her optimum health” By your beloved Dr Manish Bhatia!
Surabhi, what you have written is well known; basic, I d not contest any of those. I was referring to Elaine Lewis Quiz in particular, where she prescribes Ignatia for a patient with paradoxical response, with no underlying cause of grief. There are other remedies which suit the patient better; but the major driver for selecting Ignatia seems to be the paradoxical reaction of the patient (with no underlying grief). I am saying that is not how homeopathy is practiced. As someone pointed out earlier, one cannot prescribe ledum for malaria, just because ledum happens to be in the malaria rubric. It may be that Ledum is useful in preventing mosquito bites, and therefore malaria. Maybe I was not very clear when I wrote my first response: I do not mean that grief should be present in every case of Ignatia; but the mental conditions are to be read (where applicable) with the keynote of the remedy.
Smith, you said, “I do not mean that grief should be present in every case of Ignatia.” Yes you do, that IS what you mean, that was your whole point, that the remedy in this quiz:
https://hpathy.com/clinical-cases/revisiting-creeping-sore-throat/
could not possibly be Ignatia because there was no grief. Now you’re contradicting yourself! I suggest you try Ignatia.
LOL! Good one Elaine!
Elaine, please read my statement again. Paradoxical reactions happening due to grief indicate Ignatia, not otherwise. I stand by the same. Give me proof otherwise. Throat pain on swallowing need not require grief, and ignatia is one among many remedies for this.
Your last sentence actually proves my point. Even if I am paradoxical that doesn’t indicate Ignatia unless It is caused by grief, which I Dont have. otherwise everyone in this world would require it which is absurd! now what was the remedy for not accepting mistakes again?!!
You got to be kidding, Smith! There are more than 100 symptoms in Ignatia provings that fall under the so-called contradictory symptoms… and a majority of them are not related to any grief whatsoever. I have serious doubts now on your credentials as someone who has anything to do with Homeopathy. Frankly, you need to start afresh and learn it properly!
Please read Throat pain better swallowing
Just want to bring to the notice of pro-sensation method people here. Please read Sankaran’s latest book ‘The Synergy in Homeopathy’. You will find that Sankaran has come full circle and is now very close to Elaine in his opinion! Your homeopathic education in Sensation method is incomplete without reading this book.
“In the best of all worlds, we would have good homeopathic education. After four years of study and a few years of practice, one would be able to take this experience and add to it with graduate study. And it is at this level that most of the seminars I have seen offered today are aimed.
The problem is that these seminars have no level of prerequisite study. Those who attend are a mixed group—from new students to long-time practitioners. Although the teachers know the basics, that is not what they are typically teaching. They are teaching at the postgraduate level, and knowledge of principles is assumed.” (Homeopathy Today, April, 2001)”
Nobody argued with this opinion, the problem is that Snoopy mispresents sensantion method.
The same does GV.
By the way, sensantion method can be successfuly incoroprated into 4-year college studies.
Smith, regarding your unhappiness with the remedy chosen for last month’s quiz (Ignatia) because no ailments from grief was established, you haven’t considered the most obvious possibility that there WAS a grief but the patient didn’t think it had anything to do with her acute case so she didn’t bring it up!
Elaine, Ok, that I can accept, although that was not provided with the quiz. It’s probable that the patient was paradoxical because she was grieving and could not express her emotions correctly, which would indicate Ignatia. My advise to you would be to consider the bigger picture, the remedy, before settling on the finer points or aspects of it.
Smith said:
“Elaine, Ok, that I can accept, although that was not provided with the quiz.”
How would I have provided it? You’re supposed to think it to yourself, in your head, as a possibility. You’re supposed to say, “I see so many keynotes for Ignatia here, I’ll bet this patient had a grief she’s unwilling to talk about!”
“I see so many keynotes for Ignatia here, I’ll bet this patient had a grief she’s unwilling to talk about!” I do not think we should “fit” a case to a remedy. Sorry Elaine, I think that is an absurd approach.
Good grief! I did not prescribe Ignatia because I believed she had a grief. That didn’t matter to me, it only matters to you; so, I tried to find a way that YOU might feel comfortable with the prescription because you said only with the etiology of grief can one prescribe Ignatia; but, nothing makes you happy! The characteristic symptoms of the case fit Ignatia, that’s why I prescribed it, that’s the only reason.
DEAR DR,
MUCH HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT IGNATIA. I WILL TALK ON OTHER ISSUES. IN HOMEOPATHY WE CAN NOT TREAT A PATIENT WITH ONE APPROACH. MAY IT BE SENSATION, DREAM, CONSTITUTION OR HABITS OR BEHAVEIOUR LIKE ANIMAL, PLANT, STONE, METAL ETC. HOMEOPATH MUST TAKE TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS INTO CONSIDERATION. IN TREATMENT PATIENT S MAIN COMPLAINT MUST BE TAKEN NOTE OF AND BE COVERED IN THE REMEDY .
THANKS
DR SHEKHAR
Yes, I agree Dr. Shekhar. As Alistair Gray makes clear in his books Case-Taking and Method, the debates relative to interviewing patients and understanding totality are more complicated and nuanced than generally acknowledged. Over the past 200 years case-taking has been influenced and informed by numerous developments in our own and other fields. In turn, every homeopath brings their unique social skills and best understanding of homeopathic practice to the interview. Given the complexity of human experience, efforts to clearly perceive and match symptoms to a remedy are rarely “simple”, whether those shortcuts are attempted through keynote prescribing or misunderstood and misapplied “sensation”.
Dear Elaine,
I read many of your articles and tried to resolve the Quiz’s and I appreciate your experience, work and knowledge but in this article about the sensation method and about what dr. Sankaran teaches us you are so very wrong and I hope you are doing this only because you don’ t fully understand this method and not for another reason. I agree the sensation method is difficult to practice because is very profound and needs a very consistent knowledge of the basics, but You give many uncorrect informations about it or should I say incomplete informations! For example you said dr. Sankaran never prescribed remedy like Lycopodium, Rhus tox etc. Wrong: in his courses or books there are many of such cases; All you have written about this method and about dr.Sankaran”s work is superficial and unfair!
So please don’t make appreciations about something you don’t know in detail , you don’t understand or you don’t accept just because your way of practicing homeopathy is different.
Let’s not make the same mistakes the anti- homeopathic world does and critises something they don’t understand or don’t want to understand (please refere to december editorial of dr. Schmukler) and remember of what dr. Schmukler wrote in the same articole about many scientific discoveries that were not accepted in their times just because they were not understood.
dr. Narcisa I.
Hello everybody.
I have read some of the comments here. Some make good sense.
Homeopathy is an art and a science and we really need to get to grips with aphorism 3 of The Organon to be able to practise it properly.
There is no doubt that Sankran is a very competent homeopath – but I doubt if his courses are suited to everybody and for sure they are not suited to those who are new to the practice of homeopathy.
My experience is of a colleague who had attended many seminars and courses both in UK and India. She was telling us of a patient who during the consultation kept pulling gently at hairs at the top of her head. She put this down to a preening action and decided that the patient needed a ‘bird’ remedy. After struggling with this patient for some months – trying many ‘bird’ remedies, at one of the colleague supervision meetings a suggestion was made to her that a classical case analysis and repertorisation should be carried out. Once done, one of the familiar polychrests came up and the case moved forward with good results.
I am also mindful of Hn’s instructions that one should remain an unprejudiced observer and not ‘interpret’ actions in the above manner. We need to stick to absolute facts and be sure that short cuts rarely work in homeopathy.
Trichotillomania is the word for the impulse disorder in which an individual pulls on, chews, tears out hair and picks at skin. It can involve hair anywhere on the body and can very serious. It is so prevalent today that I am shocked the “professional healer” did not immediately recognize it for what it was. I am a layperson who happened to come across this forum (with no training in homeopathics) but who does attend a naturopathic clinic for health concerns. I have never treated myself or studied this stuff. I have never heard of “bird” remedies and strongly assert that the tugging on the hair being attributed to “preening” indicates that the observer had her own issues and problems. Look around any American classroom, restaurant, mall courtyard, high school and you will see that often it is the most beautiful girls and young women who are frantically twisting their hair due to extreme compulsion anxiety and discomfort. If you observe for longer, you will pick up many more attractive females and even some boys trying to get the comfort of the action in a way that does not scream “hair twister”! Another female in a healing profession attributing this to “preening” is frankly juvenile and demonstrates “jealousy” – I bet the patient was in fact considered attractive by community standards – I hope the patient was not charged hundreds of dollars while the ridiculous “expert” chased down silly bird remedies. I know nothing about this fellow who has created a homeopathic rep based on plants, animals, birds etc but I do know that it will encourage poaching and distruction of natural resources as well as rare plants and animals – the whole thing sounds as stupid as killing Rhinos for their horns so certain men can feel potent according to traditional Chinese medicine. I’d advise dropping the whole thing or have this misguided person take all his observations and then attribute them to the abundant resources from which they originated. Why use something from an animal that has spines and is aggressive in taking over habitat etc etc when one can go out and find a existing remedies, or other plant, or mineral or whatever that does the same thing. I’d also point out there seems to me to be some sort of teriitorial snobbery going on depending on what continent you Homeopaths are from. Is there a remedy for those of you who think you and your methods and your teachers are the be all and end all of homeopathy above all else – because as a consumer of homeopathy, I think it makes you all look silly and reflects badly on homeopathy which has enough problems with perception in the first place.
I have personally experienced some profound changes with homeopathy and have observed or heard first hand accounts from others. But this snappishness and argumentation between all you so called experts is a real turn off. Na, na, na – my teacher is better than yours. Get over yourselves and focus on helping your patients. Seriously. No need to reply unless you’d like to raise your hands to indicate how many DID NOT know what the “preening” behavior actually was – I’ll only need one hand I think to keep count.
Just so you know, unlike herbology, and even standard medicine, we only need one plant to make enough homeopathic remedies for millions of people! It’s like this: “Thriller” by Michael Jackson may have sold a million copies, but he didn’t do the recording a million times; he did it once, and then copies were made. It’s the same for homeopathic remedies. The remedy is made once, and from that one remedy, unlimited copies can be made. Secondly, about arguing amongst ourselves? I’m sure this happens in every scientific milieu. Someone gets a new idea and, rightly or wrongly, it’s challenged. I think it’s unavoidable.
Hi Elaine,
I am puzzled at your attacks on Sankaran. You claim that his questionnaire is 60-70 pages, so he knows the remedy before the consultation. That’s an accusation of deviousness. So, if his questionnaire gives him the simillimum, why is he accussed of hardly prescribing common remedies? How come he ends up with Bung-c? The lesser known remedies are hardly likely to arise from a questionnaire.
Sankaran’s books are designed to teach his method, so he will have many remedies in them that are lesser known, as well as the ones we do know. There are many cases of well-known remedies such as Arg-nit, Aur. Puls. and so on. he has never said he only prescribes “smaller” remedies.
I find his cases have more information teaching his method and explaining exactly how the remedy is determined, than many other homeopaths, old and new.
I find your attack to be particularly similar to Vithoulkas’s attack. Both seem filled with egoism and defy Hahnemann’s call to be an “unprejudiced observer”. And if one cannot be unprejudiced, then success as a homeopath does become questionable at some stage.
You may have “read his books”, but doing so with a prejudiced mind will not leave you in a state to accurately examine and critique. So you’ve read Sanakaran and it doesn’t resonate with you. OK, move on. Sanakaran doesn’t claim it’s the only way. He only says it’s a useful tool which may lead you to remedies which you may never have considered before, small or large. But don’t critique as if you are an expert who exactly understands the principles Sankaran puts forward, because I can see you actually don’t. Neither does Vithoulkas, who claims that Sankaran teaches the “I want to fly out of here is a bird remedy” method. He doesn’t. Some students, who have studied Sankaran, not understanding the method, may have said this to Vithoulkas, and he assumes that is what is taught. Once again “prejudiced observer”.
It’s like the comments I have heard that “Kent prescribes on mentals”. I ask them, “have you read his lectures? Have you looked at the different sections in his repertory. So many characteristics, so many generals, so many physicals – stop believing what others have told you and open your eyes !!”
I actually think the accusation that Sankaran knows the remedy (from the questionnaire) before the sensation principles are applied is an attack on a pofessional that demands a public apology.
Hi Elaine,
HI, PAULHOM. I WILL ANSWER YOU IN CAPITAL LETTERS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO FOLLOW THIS CONVERSATION. SORRY I DIDN’T SEE YOUR COMMENT SOONER.
I am puzzled at your attacks on Sankaran. You claim that his questionnaire is 60-70 pages, so he knows the remedy before the consultation. That’s an accusation of deviousness. So, if his questionnaire gives him the simillimum, why is he accussed of hardly prescribing common remedies? How come he ends up with Bung-c? The lesser known remedies are hardly likely to arise from a questionnaire.
YES, YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT THERE.
Sankaran’s books are designed to teach his method, so he will have many remedies in them that are lesser known, as well as the ones we do know.
ACTUALLY, THIS IS WHAT I’VE FOUND SO DISAPPOINTING, AS THERE ARE PRECIOUS FEW CASES IN HIS BOOKS THAT ARE OF THE COMMON REMEDIES THAT WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH. I FIND THIS DISAPPOINTING BECAUSE IT WOULD MEAN SO MUCH MORE TO ME IF I COULD SEE HIM TAKE A LYCOPODIUM CASE AND ARRIVE AT THE REMEDY IN A MUCH QUICKER OR SURER WAY THAN I COULD, I MIGHT BE ABLE TO SAY, “YES! THIS METHOD REALLY DOES HAVE MERIT! LOOK AT HOW EASILY HE WAS ABLE TO DISCERN LYCOPODIUM! IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN ME MUCH LONGER!” BUT WHEN THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF YOUR CASES ARE OF THE BUNG-P. VARIETY, AS I SAID ABOVE IN THE ARTICLE, YOU REALLY SHUT THE READER OUT! ALL THE READER CAN DO IS BE PASSIVE AND IN AWE! “WOW! I NEVER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN BUNG-P.! THE SENSATION METHOD IS REALLY GREAT!” ALL YOU CAN DO IS SIMPLY BUY INTO IT. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SEEN THE QUESTIONNAIRES! YOU KNOW, IF THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS SIMPLY PERFUNCTORY AND YOU’RE NOT GOING TO EXAMINE IT, WHY IS IT SO BLOODY LONG? IT’S ACTUALLY OPPRESSIVE IN ITS SHEER LENGTH! AND FOR WHAT REASON IF YOU’RE GOING TO PAY NO ATTENTION TO IT?
There are many cases of well-known remedies such as Arg-nit,
YES, I REMEMBER THE ARG-N. CASE IN ONE OF HIS BOOKS. AND I WROTE IN THE MARGIN, “IT TOOK YOU THIS LONG TO FIND ARGENT-NIT?!” YOU SEE, THIS IS THE PROBLEM: ARE 90% OF YOUR CASES THE USUAL REMEDIES? ARG-N, SULPHUR, PULSATILLA, RHUS TOX, ETC.? AND IS YOUR METHOD A DETERRANT TO FINDING THESE REMEDIES, AND ONLY USEFUL IN DISCERNING REMEDIES WHICH ARE NOT PROVEN AND DO NOT SHOW UP IN THE REPERTORY? DON’T YOU THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION? WHAT IF SOMEONE SOLD YOU A FISHING ROD WHICH WAS ONLY CAPABLE OF CATCHING CERTAIN RARE FISH WHICH COMPRISE ONLY 10% OF THE FISH IN THE OCEAN? WOULDN’T YOU RATHER HAVE THE STANDARD FISHING ROD AND HAVE A SHOT AT THE 90%?
Aur. Puls. and so on. he has never said he only prescribes “smaller” remedies.
I find his cases have more information teaching his method and explaining exactly how the remedy is determined, than many other homeopaths, old and new.
I find your attack to be particularly similar to Vithoulkas’s attack. Both seem filled with egoism and defy Hahnemann’s call to be an “unprejudiced observer”. And if one cannot be unprejudiced, then success as a homeopath does become questionable at some stage.
WHAT MORE CAN I DO BESIDES BUY HIS BOOKS AND READ THEM?
You may have “read his books”, but doing so with a prejudiced mind
NO, NO, NO! LISTEN, HOMEOPATHS IN GENERAL ARE VERY ANXIOUS TO LEARN, AND LEARN FROM THEIR PEERS. I HAVE BOUGHT MOST OF SANKARAN’S BOOKS BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO LEARN HIS METHOD. AND IN MANY WAYS I HAVE INCORPORATED WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM SANKARAN INTO MY PRACTICE. BUT I AM ALSO DISAPPOINTED IN MANY RESPECTS BECAUSE I SEE MANY HOLES IN THE CASE-TAKING THAT YOU ARE DISINCLINED TO NOTICE.
will not leave you in a state to accurately examine and critique. So you’ve read Sanakaran and it doesn’t resonate with you. OK, move on. Sanakaran doesn’t claim it’s the only way. He only says it’s a useful tool
IT IS A USEFUL TOOL. I TAKE FROM IT WHAT I CAN. BUT WHAT I’M TELLING YOU IS THIS, IF A PERSON WITH A FLU IS SITTING BEFORE YOU, OR A PERSON WITH HIVES OR AN EMERGENCY, AND YOU START YOUR QUESTIONING WITH “DESCRIBE YOUR NATURE”, SUCH AN APPROACH IS WRONG, AND IF YOU’RE DOING IT, AS HE SAYS, AS A MEANS TO UNCOVERING THE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY, IN AN ACUTE CASE, THIS IS JUST FLAT-OUT WRONG. I HAVE WRITTEN A NUMBER OF ARTICLES ON ACUTE PRESCRIBING, IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AREA OF HOMEOPATHY WE NEED TO KNOW BECAUSE PEOPLE WITH ACUTES AND EMERGENCIES ARE SUFFERING AND POTENTIALLY IN DANGER. THIS IS NO TIME TO BE LOOKING FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY. I SAID TO DAVID KEMPSON ON ONE OF THE FORUMS: “IF I WERE TO SUM UP THE SENSATION PHILOSOPHY, IT WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: THE PHOSPHORUS PATIENT WITH A GELSEMIUM FLU NEEDS PHOSPHORUS!” HE, OF COURSE, SAID, “OH, NO, YOU’RE WRONG!” BUT, CLEARLY, IF YOUR QUESTIONING IN AN ACUTE CASE IS DESIGNED TO UNCOVER THE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY, THEN THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN!
which may lead you to remedies which you may never have considered before, small or large. But don’t critique as if you are an expert who exactly understands the principles Sankaran puts forward, because I can see you actually don’t. Neither does Vithoulkas, who claims that Sankaran teaches the “I want to fly out of here is a bird remedy” method. He doesn’t. Some students, who have studied Sankaran, not understanding the method, may have said this to Vithoulkas, and he assumes that is what is taught. Once again “prejudiced observer”.
I CANNOT SPEAK FOR GEORGE AND WHY HE IS AGAINST THIS METHOD BUT YOU DON’T KNOW WHY EITHER. YOU ARE SURMISING. MAYBE HE HAS READ THE BOOKS ALSO.
It’s like the comments I have heard that “Kent prescribes on mentals”. I ask them, “have you read his lectures? Have you looked at the different sections in his repertory. So many characteristics, so many generals, so many physicals – stop believing what others have told you and open your eyes !!”
I actually think the accusation that Sankaran knows the remedy (from the questionnaire) before the sensation principles are applied is an attack on a pofessional that demands a public apology.
DAVID KEMPSON DID ACTUALLY SAY THAT NO ONE READS THOSE QUESTIONNAIRES, IT’S JUST AN OBLIGATION TO HAVE THEM FILLED OUT; SO, I REALLY DON’T KNOW WHAT’S WORSE, THAT HE DOES READ THEM AHEAD OF TIME AND YET DOESN’T MAKE THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE READER, OR HE DOESN’T READ THE GIGANTIC QUESTIONNAIRE HE MAKES HIS PATIENTS FILL OUT AND KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE PATIENT’S CASE BEFORE THE CASE-TAKING BEGINS. SO, I WILL WITHDRAW THAT “ATTACK” AS YOU CALL IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, LET’S SAY HE DOES READ THE QUESTIONNAIRE AHEAD OF TIME, AND HE SURMISES THAT THIS IS AN APIS CASE, FOR EXAMPLE. HE CAN DO WHAT HE DID WITH THE APIS CASE IN HIS BOOK “THE OTHER SONG”, AND ASK OVER AND OVER AGAIN, “BUT WHAT ABOUT INSECTS, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT INSECTS” AND THEN, OF COURSE, EVERYTHING FALLS INTO PLACE, WITH THE PATIENT FINALLY ADMITTING TO HATING INSECTS, ESPECIALLY BEES, AND THERE YOU ARE!