For instance the very wide spread myth is that for the correct remedy to find, we can use a character of the person. Prof. Vithoulkas said many times with great emphasis to understanding of this matter why this is wrong. But when you have a person in uppermost levels of group A where every information from the patient lead to the correct remedy (including his character) and if we realize that in such good levels of health even close remedy (not similumum) can affect the cure (as the defense mechanism is very strong), one can come to the wrong conclusion that the same way of finding the remedy is applicable for all patients, which is of course not true. I believe that every theory must be based upon practice with a very big number of various people with various constitutions and various levels of health. In other case it leads to confusion which is most dangerous thing for homeopathy and its students. It is very important to stick with classical homeopathy in the treatment of chronic and cancer patients.
If a young girl has black spots on her face, it would naturally cause her a lot of pain, would you expect her to be philosophical about it? So it is only a common symptom, in my opinion to feel repulsive or dirty etc. So this is not a valid or scientific way of symptom evaluation. Was there an aggravation, some tell tale sign of a real homeopathic response, a movement from above downwards for e.g.? When presenting such -totally different approaches it is our responsibility to present a full case with much more detail, for example, thermals, food desires and aversions, sleep, past history, etc. could this have been a placebo response? Are we mistaking a placebo response to be a homeopathic response? Let us assume that an actual healing response took place as a result of the lac caninum, in that case according to Herring's rule there should be amelioration of all the mental symptoms first and a at least transient worsening of the skin condition.
Every young woman who suffers from anything that affects her face will have feelings that she is ugly and naturally will want the moles or lesions to be removed. In homeopathy we are looking for something rare, something that we cannot explain and that is exactly what individualize every case the most. I am very happy for her if she is better but it is very irresponsible to create system from it that is applicable for every case.
Delusion means something that does not exist in reality but person perceive it. If for instance patient tells: I have a feeling that somebody is staying behind me and when I turn around, there is always somebody - that is not delusion but merely sensitivity of the emotional level of the patient. But if the person says: I feel as somebody is staying behind me but when I turn around nobody is there - THAT IS DELUSION.
Our vitality (defense mechanism), depending upon it's state manifests itself differently and in different manner. For e.g. in some patients the predominant curative symptoms (symptoms on which the selection of medicine is made), are mental generals, in some cases it may be physical generals, in some cases it may also be the pathology. It is like I have a wish to be known, and sometimes I would like to be known through my speeches in writing, sometimes I have a need to be heard, sometimes I have a need to be seen, sometimes I want to be recognized by only showing my hand and again sometimes by showing my bald head! It will be perhaps very erroneous to try to recognize me in any other way than what I want, because this will definitely led to wrong conclusion. (Unless one knows me so well, inside out.). In case of a very strong vitality, any information (the symptoms are clear and point clearly to a medicine), generally leads you to the medicine. But in bad vitality, one has to respect the cry of the vitality and prescribe at the level at which the vitality is demanding the medicine. In these cases one is not going you get clear well defined symptoms of a medicine! And if one tries to prescribe on the basis of what one generally finds in strong vitality cases, one is going to end up making mistakes. This is why I suppose one has to be flexible in one's approach in selection of medicine, as far as angles of prescription is concerned, one has to respect the vitality and prescribe accordingly, sometimes on mental generals, sometimes on physicals, sometimes on particulars, sometimes on etiology sometimes on significant points in the past history, sometimes on combination of all or some of these....... when a homoeopath starts doing this his mistakes will start diminishing. Otherwise when one is using only one so called approach in selection of medicine one will have brilliant successes in some cases and brilliant failures in other cases!
Clearing up of the symptoms always does not necessitate and signify a cure. Many a time it may so happen that the present symptoms are cleared with improvement in some generalities with subsequent worsening of more important generalities and eventual deterioration of the patient! In my early days of practice I had a female patient of 70 years suffering from tuberculosis of lungs. We prescribed for her and the whole symptomatology cleared up with so called improvement in her weakness, appetite and sleep. I was elated at first, but later dismayed and horrified, as she gradually developed symptoms of manic psychosis! Secondly I agree that our interpretation of symptoms is less important than the actual symptoms! Our interpretation may be wrong at times. Even if we get right results with wrong methodology (this indeed can happen), this is not a correct procedure as this success at most to Ayers is accidental and cannot perhaps be reproduced. Keep up the good week. All the best!