Ask Questions about Health, Homeopathy, Medicine - Get Answers from Experts and Peers!
December 19, 2011
July 5, 2012
Well it looks like fairly basic, traditional homoeopathy to me. Well organised symptoms and heavily reliant on the repertory. Peculiarity has to be seen as situational, which I agree with (he calls it 'context'). Most of the links are actually to slide shows, and they are just headings obviously so there is no detail. It is hard to comment on his method from them. The cases probably show more by example. His focus is the examination of the physical body and using its pecularities to confirm prescriptions.
The cases seem fine. They look alot like the cases I was given in the first year or two of college to analyze. I would probably differ on the specific symptoms I might use (I don't find 'sidedness' to be reliable in differentiating remedies as most remedies are listed for symptoms on both sides, nor would I use symptoms like 'throat inflammation' or 'Mind, Anger' as being peculiar enough to make any difference to the choice of remedies) but that is just my personal preference. It seems he uses those common symptoms (eg. location inflammation) to establish a general tendency and I don't see any problem with that either, although I would say that using them could possibly eliminate remedies that did not show symptoms in that location in the provings.
However he does seem to use a wide variety of medicines. I notice for his study on treatment of children for Atopic Dermatitis he shows results from using Quartz, Cor-r, Oleander, Calc-lac and Calc-nit so he has not fallen into the trap of only using 'polycrests' due to their overemphasis in the repertories. I like that he uses elemental themes as well, albeit only in physical aspects (Carbons, Kali's).
Frankly this looks like a valid way to approach homoeopathic prescribing. Since he is not looking for the 'simillimum' but only one of a small most similar group, the fact that some remedies might not be represented in the rubrics covering pathological symptoms probably doesn't matter too much to him, and it might not matter too much to the patient either. This reminds me in some ways of Grant Bentley's diagnosis of miasm based on facical features.
I think it shows that different methods will work, based on the skills and on the focus of the practitioner. Dr Jurji is clearly extremely comfortable with physical examination and pathology. This is not to say that mentals cannot also be used with great precision, but I understand his desire to rely on 'objective' symptoms.
Something I found interesting though, was that in those cases where he mentions a mental symptom (defined in more detail than 'Anger') I immediately thought of the exact remedy he prescribed. For me, it was the mental that decided the choice, but I could easily see how the whole case made a more complete picture.
December 19, 2011
Alan V. Schmukler said
I just had time to review his bio and that sounds pretty solid. ( You can ignore everything else that WIKI comments about homeopathy).
It seems actually nobody knows him outside his country.
His books were not translated to other languages.
Most Users Ever Online: 231
Currently Browsing this Page:
David Kempson: 775
Manish Bhatia: 660
in need of help2: 373
Firuzi Mehta: 335
In need of help: 308
Elaine Lewis: 180
Guest Posters: 27
Newest Members:FRAN COE, bhikkhu, Sharayu Rajwade, shoba Val, BP Singh, Sukriti Sood, jasionjose, ashokrke67, amit kumar, garcia patricia
Moderators: Alan V. Schmukler: 983, Rochelle: 195, David A. Johnson: 38, Shirley Reischman: 177, Pankaj Titar: 7
Administrators: Manish Bhatia: 0, Hpathy.com: 0