From patient to disease.
Strange enough I had no reaction or question about my latest article where I stated that a prescription can be successfully made BEFORE the totality of objective and subjective symptoms present themselves clearly.Indeed on a physiopathological similitude present in this stage of disease, but still clinically mute.What does this mean?
Well there has been a constant battle in Homeopathy between pathological prescribers and purists, who want to be more Hahnemannian than Hahnemann himself.I have seen cases where in oncology Phos was prescribed on a perfect totality as “ unitary” remedy.Patient fell himself oh so good! Few weeks later the sad news came that the tumor spread and metastased in every vital organ of the sick person.Is that pure Homeopathy? No this is nonsense.
It was Dr Antoine Nebel from Lausanne, Switserland, who warned the Homeopathic world of this.If the so called constitutional remedy acts and toxines are released in the organism, we should take care and see if the eliminary organs are still healthy enough to do the cleansing, or need help with the so called organ remedies.But the opposition came from the purist corner.They themselves probably did not read Kent properly! So that disasters happen when only blindly the totality is used.The purists want to cure with only one constitutional remedy.Impossible says Hahnemann himself, in chronic diseases.
Indeed the prescription should come from the way the sick person reacts to his disease.Individuality, idiosyncrasia, whatever name is given.Never on the disease name, so they say.But mind you.Experience and empiricism teach us that very often in certain nosological entities the same group of remedies , even sometimes one single remedy, show themselves over and over again.This should make us think.The few lichen ruber planus cases I have in my practice are Antimonium crudum cases.Discovered on pure Homeopathic strategy.So starting from prescribing on the characteristics of the disease and of the patient, we come to a conclusion where it is allowed and Homeopathically correct to think of this remedy in this typical disease.Many examples I can give you.My endometriosis cases were often, not always, Borax.My trichomonas vaginalis cases were often cured with Lilium tigrinum, low.Unless one has clear indications for another remedy, why not?Cough in smokers often Sulfur iodatum.Migraine in children often Digitalis.Morton metatarsalgia, between the metatarsal heads ,often Berberis vulgaris.Narcolepsia often Laurocerasus.Tennis elbow Gymnocladus.Milk crusts in nurslings Formica rufa.Pelvic inflammatory disease Tilia europea.Yes indeed I abuse the word “often”. But this is the plain reality.
When Dr.Anil Habbu from Pune, India, tells us the remedy of Barrett esophagus is Bromium.That the therapeutic results of aseptic necrosis of the hip are excellent with Aurum high and Fluoric acid low, it means something.That systematically when there is intracranial hypertension, he prescribes Gelsemium low together with the constitutional remedy high. It is all based on years of experience and knowledge, even reaching beyond borders of generations.
Who is going to tell me know that a Homeopath should never prescribe on a disease? My conclusion is that experience and study say something else.And this also leads to flexibility and successful prescriptions in the modern world.
Thanks for your attention.