Husband has a rash that won't go away
Moderators: eye_of_tiger, shalimar123
-
TawasSquaw
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:23 am
Husband has a rash that won't go away
About a year ago, my husband Bill went to the Dr. and to this date they have not been able to get rid of it. He works on Construction and we think it may be mortor poisining. The Drs. have given him several perscriptions and nothing works. I have used Cocoa Butter lotion, Bactiraction ointment, Aloe and even rubbing Alcohol. It starts to get better then breaks out all over again. Can you please help us in this matter?
Thou it harm none! So mote it be.
Don't "suppress" those symptoms!!
Hi TawasSquaw: I'm an advanced amateur (non-professional) in homeopathy for several years. I can share some of my knowledge about homeopathy with you.
One of the really big rules if you want to use this methodology is - DON'T SUPPRESS THE SYMPTOMS!! So... those various ointments, etc, are NG! According to classic homeopathic theory, they may aid in temporary pain relief (be "palliative"), but there's no way they'll ever lead to "cure". They'll also cause trouble for any prospective follow-on homeopathic treatment in the case that they'll "mask" the true nature of the ailment (muddle the true picture of the ill person that the homeopath must see), plus they're likely pushing the ailment down lower/deeper into the body... usually, this would be really bad news... but the good news in your husband's case is that his body successfully fought this attempted suppression by returning the true symptom picture back to the surface of the skin... The rash returning is a very good sign of his internal health strength! Rather than explain this classic concept here, do a search on the net for "Herings law of cure". This is a great/true concept to know & respect!
In a simple sense, there are two ways to practice homeopathy: in a purely acute manner, and in a deeper chronic manner (there are "many" other proposed ways of homeopathic practice, but this simple duality best serves our brief overview purpose here).
In the acute manner, a homeopathy-knowledgeable person hears of a third persons symptomatology ("my husband gets rashes"), and offers suggestions of remedies from among the most popular 20 or 30 (called the "polycrest") remedies (like those sold by Boiron in the blue tubes in most health food stores, etc)...
In the chronic manner, the patient sits directly with a homeopathic practitioner/professional and elaborates on his ailment via a probing discussion which usually lasts several hours.
In a simple manner, "acute remedies" are most appropriately prescribed for "acute ailments": Such ailments are those that would normally go away by themselves naturally in time (headaches, hangovers, scraps/bruises, etc). Your husband's ailment as described is NOT acute... so acute application of homeopathic remedies is not appropriate for his case.
Your only prospect for a "true" cure is this more-serious methodology. The "acute" prescribing alternative is not sufficiently serious, and in some cases is just as bad a course of action as taking non-homeopathy remedies. The simple lesson in this observation is that the potential "homeopathic" quality of a substance doesn't come from it's label (naming itself a "homeopathic remedy"), but instead from it's specific educated selection (from among thousands of available homeopathic remedies) and match to the specific ill person. A long way of saying... "If you want to use homeopathy to treat your husband's ailment, your husband needs to sit with a homeopathic practitioner..."
There's something here though, to be examined more closely. You mentioned your suspicion about your husband's ailment possibly being linked to his exposure to mortor in his job: since he's expressed this rash, has he ever been away from the mortor for an extended period (such as a week or more for a vacation, etc) and experienced a notable lessening in his symptoms? Also, is he aware if any of the other fellows around his job site experience anything similar as this?
If either of these proved to be the case, it might be OK to try a light-duty (low potency) acute prescription to start off.
If you're further interested in my opinion on this, please post back as far as these last two questions. Maybe I can be a further assistance...
One of the really big rules if you want to use this methodology is - DON'T SUPPRESS THE SYMPTOMS!! So... those various ointments, etc, are NG! According to classic homeopathic theory, they may aid in temporary pain relief (be "palliative"), but there's no way they'll ever lead to "cure". They'll also cause trouble for any prospective follow-on homeopathic treatment in the case that they'll "mask" the true nature of the ailment (muddle the true picture of the ill person that the homeopath must see), plus they're likely pushing the ailment down lower/deeper into the body... usually, this would be really bad news... but the good news in your husband's case is that his body successfully fought this attempted suppression by returning the true symptom picture back to the surface of the skin... The rash returning is a very good sign of his internal health strength! Rather than explain this classic concept here, do a search on the net for "Herings law of cure". This is a great/true concept to know & respect!
In a simple sense, there are two ways to practice homeopathy: in a purely acute manner, and in a deeper chronic manner (there are "many" other proposed ways of homeopathic practice, but this simple duality best serves our brief overview purpose here).
In the acute manner, a homeopathy-knowledgeable person hears of a third persons symptomatology ("my husband gets rashes"), and offers suggestions of remedies from among the most popular 20 or 30 (called the "polycrest") remedies (like those sold by Boiron in the blue tubes in most health food stores, etc)...
In the chronic manner, the patient sits directly with a homeopathic practitioner/professional and elaborates on his ailment via a probing discussion which usually lasts several hours.
In a simple manner, "acute remedies" are most appropriately prescribed for "acute ailments": Such ailments are those that would normally go away by themselves naturally in time (headaches, hangovers, scraps/bruises, etc). Your husband's ailment as described is NOT acute... so acute application of homeopathic remedies is not appropriate for his case.
Your only prospect for a "true" cure is this more-serious methodology. The "acute" prescribing alternative is not sufficiently serious, and in some cases is just as bad a course of action as taking non-homeopathy remedies. The simple lesson in this observation is that the potential "homeopathic" quality of a substance doesn't come from it's label (naming itself a "homeopathic remedy"), but instead from it's specific educated selection (from among thousands of available homeopathic remedies) and match to the specific ill person. A long way of saying... "If you want to use homeopathy to treat your husband's ailment, your husband needs to sit with a homeopathic practitioner..."
There's something here though, to be examined more closely. You mentioned your suspicion about your husband's ailment possibly being linked to his exposure to mortor in his job: since he's expressed this rash, has he ever been away from the mortor for an extended period (such as a week or more for a vacation, etc) and experienced a notable lessening in his symptoms? Also, is he aware if any of the other fellows around his job site experience anything similar as this?
If either of these proved to be the case, it might be OK to try a light-duty (low potency) acute prescription to start off.
If you're further interested in my opinion on this, please post back as far as these last two questions. Maybe I can be a further assistance...
-
Rhutobello
- Posts: 10724
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:39 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest