Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:ahr:lippe-ad-importance-of-a-single-symptom-158-10559 [2013/01/01 14:31]
80.86.255.130
+++ en:ahr:lippe-ad-importance-of-a-single-symptom-158-10559 [2017/01/30 11:38]
legatum old revision restored (2013/01/01 14:46)
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 {{anchor:s15}}The thinking and progressive physicians do no longer contend for special forms of a malady, but that the conditions of a case, <span grade2>i.</span> <span grade2>e.</span>, the subjective symptoms of the patient indicate the curative remedy.{{anchor:s16}}%%*[%%Vide <span grade2>Grundesetze der Physiologie, Pathologie und homoeopatische Therapie,</span> by von Grauvogl, 1860.] By following Hahnemann in his progressiveness it becomes apparent that whatever characteristic symptoms are observed on the patient, the similar symptoms must be characteristic of the truly specific curative remedy to be applied, and it is obvious that these characteristics are much oftener found among the subjective symptoms both of the patient to be cured and the medicine to be applied. {{anchor:s17}}No medicine has ever produced certain pathological changes — structural lesions, etc., and inasmuch as a medicine can only produce by the proving on the healthy a condition similar to the subjective symptoms of pathological changes — structural lesions, etc., these very subjective symptoms become all important to the physician when selecting the truly specific homoeopathically curative medicine. {{anchor:s18}}And whatever the examining physician may have discovered of perverted vital forces of physiological and pathological changes by the aid of the discoveries of modern science — all these discoveries, as a whole or as a single symptom, would never indicate the specific remedy.
-{{anchor:s19}}The importance of a single symptom becomes most apparent when we can detect in the patient this single characteristic symptom, corresponding with a similar single characteristic symptom observed by proving a medicine. {{anchor:s20}}To illustrate this position I will, first, quote a case from my own case-book, in which an objective symptom indicated the truly specific remedy. {{anchor:s21}}The case was one of very malignant ship fever. {{anchor:s22}}The patient had been sick nine days when I found him on that day, in the morning, lying on his back perfectly unconscious, his eyes wide open, glaring, fixed on the ceiling, pupils dilated, cheeks red and hot, mouth wide open, the lower jaw hanging down, tongue and lips dry, black and cracked; picking of bed coverings, pulse 200. {{anchor:s23}}The pathological condition most certainly was approaching paralysis of the brain. {{anchor:s24}}Now if I had followed the advice of retrograding physicians, I should have gloried in having found in this pathological condition the important single symptom. {{anchor:s25}}Should I then have administered Morphine, or Helonin, Hydr. and Opium in alternation, by the spoonful, drop, or more?
+{{anchor:s19}}The importance of a single symptom becomes most apparent when we can detect in the patient this single characteristic symptom, corresponding with a similar single characteristic symptom observed by proving a medicine. {{anchor:s20}}To illustrate this position I will, first, quote a case from my own case-book, in which an objective symptom indicated the truly specific remedy. <span grade3>{{anchor:s21}}The case was one of very malignant ship fever((Epidemic typhus (ed. rem.) )). {{anchor:s22}}The patient had been sick nine days when I found him on that day, in the morning, lying on his back perfectly unconscious, his eyes wide open, glaring, fixed on the ceiling, pupils dilated, cheeks red and hot, mouth wide open, the lower jaw hanging down, tongue and lips dry, black and cracked; picking of bed coverings, pulse 200.</span> {{anchor:s23}}The pathological condition most certainly was approaching paralysis of the brain. {{anchor:s24}}Now if I had followed the advice of retrograding physicians, I should have gloried in having found in this pathological condition the important single symptom. {{anchor:s25}}Should I then have administered Morphine, or Helonin, Hydr. and Opium in alternation, by the spoonful, drop, or more?
-{{anchor:s26}}The unconsciousness in this case would have made me think at first of Bell., Hyos., Mur. acid, Opium, Rhus and Stram. {{anchor:s27}}The eyes would have indicated Bell., Hyos., Opium and Stram.; the tongue and lips, Ars., Opium and Rhus; the hanging of the lower jaw, Ars., Lyc., and Opium; the picking of the bed clothes, Arn., Ars., Hyos. {{anchor:s28}}Opium and Stram. {{anchor:s29}}Not being able to select a remedy, I further examined the patient and found that he had passed the urine involuntarily all night, but this single symptom again left me to choose between Arn., Ars., Bell., Hyos. and Rhus, but upon still further examination I found on the sheet of the patient, that the urine involuntarily discharged, had made a large deposit of red sand, resembling brick dust. {{anchor:s30}}Here was the objective symptom characteristic of the case and the remedy. {{anchor:s31}}I now concluded to give Lyc. I dissolved six pellets of the 200th potency in half a tumbler full of water and had every two hours a spoonful put in the open mouth of the unconscious patient. {{anchor:s32}}When I saw him again, at two, p.m., I found him with his eyes and mouth firmly closed in a natural sleep and in a very heavy perspiration. {{anchor:s33}}He finally recovered fully and enjoyed perfect good health for many years. {{anchor:s34}}In this case the single characteristic symptom was a guide in the selection of the curative remedy, but <span grade2>not</span> in the diagnosis of the disease; and again if this single symptom had been a guide in the diagnosis of the disease, it would not have been a guide in the selection of the curative remedy, inasmuch as it is an established fact, true beyond any further controversy, that the diagnosis of the disease, <span grade2>i. e</span>., the name of the disease never can possibly indicate the only truly curative remedy. {{anchor:s35}}This fallacy belongs to the Sangrado School and has been left to them by progressive Allopathy. {{anchor:s36}}One symptom never affords us a clue to any pathological changes, or aberrations of the nerve forces, going on within the diseased organism, because we do not know of any medicine that can or does produce any pathological changes or aberrations of the nerve forces, we only know of symptoms produced by the proving of medicines similar to the symptoms through which the diseased condition of the patient demonstrates itself and becomes observable to our senses. {{anchor:s37}}But to illustrate the position assumed that one single symptom is very important, let us refer to the frequently recurring symptoms, "sinking at the epigastrium.{{anchor:s38}}" This symptom standing alone and by itself is of no importance whatever, neither characterizing a remedy or any abnormal conditions of the system. {{anchor:s39}}Whether caused by a disturbed condition of the pneumo-gastric nerve, or of the uterus or by a nervous depression, the symptom by itself or the supposed cause will never assist us in finding the curative remedy. {{anchor:s40}}As far as our observations have been able to enlighten us, the symptom has been successfully removed by the following medicines; Alumen, Ambra, Baryta, Dig., Ignatia, Kali carb., Lobelia, Lycopodium, Petroleum, Oleander, Sepia and Veratrum.
+{{anchor:s26}}The unconsciousness in this case would have made me think at first of Bell., Hyos., Mur. acid, Opium, Rhus and Stram. {{anchor:s27}}The eyes would have indicated Bell., Hyos., Opium and Stram.; the tongue and lips, Ars., Opium and Rhus; the hanging of the lower jaw, Ars., Lyc., and Opium; the picking of the bed clothes, Arn., Ars., Hyos. {{anchor:s28}}Opium and Stram. {{anchor:s29}}Not being able to select a remedy, I further examined the patient and found that <span grade3>he had passed the urine involuntarily all night</span>, but this single symptom again left me to choose between Arn., Ars., Bell., Hyos. and Rhus, but upon still further examination I found on the sheet of the patient, that the <span grade3>urine involuntarily discharged, had made a large deposit of red sand, resembling brick dust.</span> {{anchor:s30}}Here was the objective symptom characteristic of the case and the remedy. {{anchor:s31}}I now concluded to give Lyc. I dissolved six pellets of the 200th potency in half a tumbler full of water and had every two hours a spoonful put in the open mouth of the unconscious patient. {{anchor:s32}}When I saw him again, at two, p.m., I found him with his eyes and mouth firmly closed in a natural sleep and in a very heavy perspiration. {{anchor:s33}}He finally recovered fully and enjoyed perfect good health for many years. {{anchor:s34}}In this case the single characteristic symptom was a guide in the selection of the curative remedy, but <span grade2>not</span> in the diagnosis of the disease; and again if this single symptom had been a guide in the diagnosis of the disease, it would not have been a guide in the selection of the curative remedy, inasmuch as it is an established fact, true beyond any further controversy, that the diagnosis of the disease, <span grade2>i. e</span>., the name of the disease never can possibly indicate the only truly curative remedy. {{anchor:s35}}This fallacy belongs to the Sangrado School and has been left to them by progressive Allopathy. {{anchor:s36}}One symptom never affords us a clue to any pathological changes, or aberrations of the nerve forces, going on within the diseased organism, because we do not know of any medicine that can or does produce any pathological changes or aberrations of the nerve forces, we only know of symptoms produced by the proving of medicines similar to the symptoms through which the diseased condition of the patient demonstrates itself and becomes observable to our senses. {{anchor:s37}}But to illustrate the position assumed that one single symptom is very important, let us refer to the frequently recurring symptoms, "sinking at the epigastrium.{{anchor:s38}}" This symptom standing alone and by itself is of no importance whatever, neither characterizing a remedy or any abnormal conditions of the system. {{anchor:s39}}Whether caused by a disturbed condition of the pneumo-gastric nerve, or of the uterus or by a nervous depression, the symptom by itself or the supposed cause will never assist us in finding the curative remedy. {{anchor:s40}}As far as our observations have been able to enlighten us, the symptom has been successfully removed by the following medicines; Alumen, Ambra, Baryta, Dig., Ignatia, Kali carb., Lobelia, Lycopodium, Petroleum, Oleander, Sepia and Veratrum.
 {{anchor:s41}}The important single symptom in this connection, under Alumen, is that the sinking sensation is aggravated after eating; while under Baryta carb., this sensation is relieved by eating. {{anchor:s42}}This symptom is already on record in Hahnemann's <span grade2>Chronic Diseases</span>, under No. 359, where he says, "Sensation of weakness in the stomach which disappears after eating.{{anchor:s43}}" The important single symptom, under Ambra, we find in Hahnemann's <span grade2>Materia Medica Pura</span>, under No. 4, where he says, "<span grade2>She</span> must lie down on account of giddiness and a sensation of weakness in the stomach."

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools